Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Subtle Knife 11-09-07, 09:05 PM	This might be a really dumb question, but it has come up in our game and I cannot find a precedent. Can a player/character opt NOT to fill a feat at the level where they gain it, and opt to fill it a level later? For instance, could a character hold off filling the feat they gain at 9th level and fill it at 10th? The operating issue is with meeting prerequisites for the feat; in principle the character could meet the prereqs at 10th level, but won't have a new feat option until 12th. Thanks SK
Bopple 11-09-07, 10:12 PM	No, you cannot. You have to take your feats and skills, before you hit the next level.
groveborn 11-10-07, 01:08 AM	The general consensus is that you MUST select a feat at every opportunity that it would be allowed, same as with skills. There is no hard and fast rule that I've seen to back that up. I'm certain someone may post a reply that says you must, but without hard evidence, you're allowed to wait. I'd ask your DM. Page 58 outlines advancing a level. Keep in mind people claim that you may "withhold advancing a level" to use that Exp in spell casting and crafting, but according to that page, you immediately advance. Conflicting stories if you ask me.
Bopple 11-10-07, 01:23 AM	It's not only consensus but also FAQ.
groveborn 11-12-07, 01:07 PM	FAQ aren't rules, they're suggestions.
wonlee76 11-12-07, 01:26 PM	FAQ aren't rules, they're suggestions. In this case, its a suggestion backed up by the rules at least. I admit FAQ entries are a bit scattered and sometimes can be inconsistent with the rules but just because there are a few bad apples in the FAQ you shouldn't look at it for guidance. In this particular case, there are no rules that permit "saving" a feat until later. The rules on leveling up strongly implies that when you get a feat from leveling up, you have to take it as part of leveling up. Then again, there's no rule that explicitly says you can't save a feat until later but if you make that argument, you could make lots of arguments about "rules" that are not explicitly stated in the PHB and that just opens up a can of worms that you don't want to deal with.
goawayugh 11-12-07, 01:31 PM	The general consensus is that you MUST select a feat at every opportunity that it would be allowed, same as with skills. There is no hard and fast rule that I've seen to back that up. I'm certain someone may post a reply that says you must, but without hard evidence, you're allowed to wait. I'd ask your DM. Page 58 outlines advancing a level. Keep in mind people claim that you may "withhold advancing a level" to use that Exp in spell casting and crafting, but according to that page, you immediately advance. Conflicting stories if you ask me.The rules state what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do. If you were allowed to do this, the rules would say so.
risner 11-12-07, 02:19 PM	This might be a really dumb question, but it has come up in our game and I cannot find a precedent. Can a player/character opt NOT to fill a feat at the level where they gain it, and opt to fill it a level later? For instance, could a character hold off filling the feat they gain at 9th level and fill it at 10th? The operating issue is with meeting prerequisites for the feat; in principle the character could meet the prereqs at 10th level, but won't have a new feat option until 12th. Thanks SK Sure, but he meets it with whatever he had at the time of 9th level. He could not for instance take a feat with BAB+10 as a requirement, since at 9th level he can never take a feat with BAB+10 since he can never have a BAB of +10 at 9th.
risner 11-12-07, 02:21 PM	FAQ aren't rules, they're suggestions. You are just being silly. There are hard and fast rules in the "advancing a level" rules in the PHB. If you disagree, then you probably also feel that there is no rule that dead people can't full attack.
Knightblde 11-12-07, 04:02 PM	It is a hard and fast rule that you cannot store Feats and Skill points. I have read it. When I find it again, I will post back.
key 11-12-07, 04:09 PM	This might be a really dumb question, but it has come up in our game and I cannot find a precedent. Can a player/character opt NOT to fill a feat at the level where they gain it, and opt to fill it a level later? For instance, could a character hold off filling the feat they gain at 9th level and fill it at 10th? The operating issue is with meeting prerequisites for the feat; in principle the character could meet the prereqs at 10th level, but won't have a new feat option until 12th. Thanks SK He can select the feat at 9th level. Once he meets the feat's prerequisites at 10th level, he can start using the feat.
Legdiwena 11-12-07, 04:17 PM	Well, technically, aren't all the official rules just mere guidelines too?
wonlee76 11-12-07, 04:28 PM	He can select the feat at 9th level. Once he meets the feat's prerequisites at 10th level, he can start using the feat. I don't think that's true. Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite. I forget the exact wording on the leveling up section of the PHB but I'm pretty certain it says you have to take the feat at the level you attain it (or its strongly implied). Combined with the SRD's "definition" foir prerequisite for a feat, I don't think you can pick Weapon Finesse as a level 1 rogue and suddenly get the benefit of Weapon Finesse at level 2 because a level 1 rogue doesn't meet the +1 BAB prerequisite.
risner 11-12-07, 07:50 PM	He can select the feat at 9th level. Once he meets the feat's prerequisites at 10th level, he can start using the feat. He can not select the feat at 9th if he doesn't meet the pre-reqs at 9.
BugHunter 11-12-07, 08:04 PM	He can select the feat at 9th level. Once he meets the feat's prerequisites at 10th level, he can start using the feat. No, the rules say he must meet any prerequisites for the feat in order to select it.
key 11-12-07, 11:51 PM	Thanks for the correction everyone. You're right. PHB: "Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat."
Red_Wizard 11-14-07, 11:41 AM	I have never seen a rule saying you must, and as a DM I have always allowed this. Why? Because you are opting to sacrifice a feat slot for an entire level, just for the benifit of using it later. That in and of itself isn't broken, and if anything could prove detrimental to the character who is down the feat option. Additionally, from a story stand point, it makes much more sense to do this than not. If a character is "training" to be skilled at something, and that ability won't be possible until you reach a certain level, it seems silly to make you spend a feat option on something you'd never trained for. Story explanation is as simple as saying the "skill" they wish to achieve is harder than they'd expected to master. Feats are basically representing a characters accumulated knowledge being focused down as they improve in their craft. The layout of the levels is for mechanical balance, but for story a small bend will ultimately make no real difference. That said, I'd not let it work in reverse, as taking a feat later can mean flavour, allowing feats earlier can break the game. Besides, if they later take a feat whose prereqs they met before, an OOC retro can simply say the feats were taken in a different order. ;) -RW p.s. There is no rule that states that you have to spend all skill points during the level they are acquired. With SP, you are still spending the same amount of points, and it doesn't allow for you to go higher than the cap. So again, this can be used for flavour.
Orenmir 11-14-07, 02:55 PM	He can select the feat at 9th level. Once he meets the feat's prerequisites at 10th level, he can start using the feat. This is a houserule that I know many DMs allow. However, this allowance should be restricted -- else, a player could wind up having an imbalanced amount of high-powered feats when reaching a high enough level.
Leress 11-14-07, 05:38 PM	I have never seen a rule saying you must, and as a DM I have always allowed this. here it is... Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite. A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. p.s. There is no rule that states that you have to spend all skill points during the level they are acquired. With SP, you are still spending the same amount of points, and it doesn't allow for you to go higher than the cap. So again, this can be used for flavour. Ummm... yes there is on page 62 of the PHB Spend all your skill points. You can't save them to spend later.
risner 11-14-07, 09:58 PM	This kind of thinking is what leads to destruction. If this is allowed, all sorts of game breaking things come from it. Anyone that allows this has never optimized a character, since if you had you would love to be able to do this. You can not save feats, skills, or anything by the rules.
Orenmir 11-14-07, 11:03 PM	When was the last time you rolled your hit die at first level? Sometimes, breaking a rule doesn't break the game. It's not that black & white.
Rulebook 11-15-07, 01:09 AM	last time i rolled HD at first level was back in 2e... you get max hp at first level dude.
MnemonicSV 11-15-07, 02:47 AM	I personally don't think it's really imbalancing to allow a character to hold off on choosing a feat for a level or two. It's not completely game-breaking. I would NOT however allow a character to select the feat mid-session. It's hardly fair when the fighter "suddenly" learns Power Attack (or some other feat) conveniently just when he needs it. Still, we ALL have to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of feat selection "by the rules." For example, a 3rd-level character can't select Dodge if he has only a 12 in DEX. However, if that same character momentarily borrows Bob's Gloves of Dexterity during level up, now he suddenly can take the feat? Now, all he has to do is wait until level 4 (when he dumps his stat increase into DEX) and he may use the feat freely as usual (without later borrowing Bob's gloves). By the rules, this is perfectly legal. In effect, the character chose a feat at level 3, which he really had no ability to use until level 4 (since only then would he meet the prerequisites by his own merits). How is this really much different than simply allowing the character to choose the feat at level 3 and be done with it (even though he couldn't use it yet)? In practical terms... there is no difference whatsoever. In gaming terms, the only difference was this: Bob had Gloves of Dexterity to loan. Now THAT'S metagame! ---------- P.S. - When I DM, I don't allow magic items to be used to qualify for a feat. Yeah, that's a houserule. But I prefer that over "officially sanctioned" metagaming.
goawayugh 11-15-07, 07:23 AM	This kind of thinking is what leads to destruction. If this is allowed, all sorts of game breaking things come from it. Anyone that allows this has never optimized a character, since if you had you would love to be able to do this. You can not save feats, skills, or anything by the rules. Agreed 100%.
Orenmir 11-15-07, 10:33 AM	last time i rolled HD at first level was back in 2e... you get max hp at first level dude. That's my point, dude. RAW, you are supposed to roll your HD for every level. It's a rule that everybody breaks; yet, it's not game-breaking. My point is: you can break a rule without breaking the game.
key 11-15-07, 10:34 AM	Still, we ALL have to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of feat selection "by the rules." For example, a 3rd-level character can't select Dodge if he has only a 12 in DEX. However, if that same character momentarily borrows Bob's Gloves of Dexterity during level up, now he suddenly can take the feat? Now, all he has to do is wait until level 4 (when he dumps his stat increase into DEX) and he may use the feat freely as usual (without later borrowing Bob's gloves). By the rules, this is perfectly legal. In effect, the character chose a feat at level 3, which he really had no ability to use until level 4 (since only then would he meet the prerequisites by his own merits). How is this really much different than simply allowing the character to choose the feat at level 3 and be done with it (even though he couldn't use it yet)? In practical terms... there is no difference whatsoever. In gaming terms, the only difference was this: Bob had Gloves of Dexterity to loan. Now THAT'S metagame! You would make a good lawyer.
Frugal 11-15-07, 11:06 AM	That's my point, dude. RAW, you are supposed to roll your HD for every level. It's a rule that everybody breaks; yet, it's not game-breaking. My point is: you can break a rule without breaking the game. Actually, I'm pretty sure that RAW says you get max HP at 1st level but I'm away from books at the moment.
1 ton ghost 11-15-07, 11:38 AM	IMO, i would be disinclined to allow this as it fosters a kind of slap dash approach to character gen., especially for veteran players. that is, the maxim of "plan ahead" exists for a reason. PCs that have set goals and are oriented to a specific path are more likely to achieve said acclaim than those that simply wing it. it feels, "off" as well. of course, by that rationale, you could enable your monsters, NPCs and the like to engage in this sort of experimental design and see how the PCs like it. don't most advantages and the like favor the antagonists anyway? realistically speaking, i mean, as an adventurer, you wouldn't want to half ass much of anything considering how often you risk your life and all. that problem solves itself; the foolish and ill prepared often die. PC Darwinism.
Red_Wizard 11-15-07, 12:59 PM	here it is... Originally Posted by SRD Feats Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite. A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. I wasn't suggesting they could. My post was in response to the OP. If you'll kindly read again, I was saying I'd allow a person to hold off on taking a feat, to be instead used at a later time on something else that they couldn't otherwise qualify for when the feat was gained. I was also saying that it is in no way rule breaking, and for classes with limited feat options already, PC story to me is more important than following a level progression chart designed for mechanical balance. Ummm... yes there is on page 62 of the PHB I'll have to look when I'm home then, but I don't see why the rule would be there as it honestly makes no difference if you spend a skill point now, or 12 levels from now, save that in 12 levels you are down one skill point. :P -RW
Red_Wizard 11-15-07, 01:12 PM	This kind of thinking is what leads to destruction. If this is allowed, all sorts of game breaking things come from it. Anyone that allows this has never optimized a character, since if you had you would love to be able to do this. You can not save feats, skills, or anything by the rules. There is a big difference between playing the game with a storyline, and Character Op. I agree it would be broken if you were allowed to hold off on every feat until 20th+, as then you could take all the "best" feats in on lump. I see the obvious flaw in this for Character Op, though I will note that if everyone was doing this while Oping then it would balance everything out again. However I challenge anyone to go 20+ levels without taking a single feat. And it can't be some random rushed, hack and slash campaign, with a level being gained once a session at least. A real, balanced RP/ Combat scenario, with an average leveling of One per month at best. I honestly doubt that anyone would. And, assuming someone managed to go almost two years without a single feat -- especially with character Op in mind -- what then would be the story explanation for your ineptness over those 20 levels? Let's also completely overlook the fact most campaigns don't even reach the level to properly optimize a character, and if they do, often end shortly after 20th. ;) -RW
Paper_Weasel 11-15-07, 01:15 PM	The PHB states that you gain a feat at a certain level. This I read to mean you add a feat to your character sheet at that level. Bending the rules is, as always, fine in certain cases. The PHB also answers the maximum HP at first level question. See page 6, under "Record Combat Numbers: Hit Points". I can't find it in the SRD, so I'm not sure I'm allowed to post the answer :rolleye2: Alas, I think the feat-at-level passages are sufficiently vague that this debate can just continue as long as it damn well pleases. Oh well, we tried.
groveborn 11-15-07, 02:00 PM	Page 6, PHB tells you to max your HP at first level. Only first level characters, not first level classes get it. Now, aside from a FAQ, where does it say one MUST select a feat? I believe in the same place that says you MUST advance a level upon reaching sufficient Experience....
goawayugh 11-15-07, 02:19 PM	Page 6, PHB tells you to max your HP at first level. Only first level characters, not first level classes get it. Now, aside from a FAQ, where does it say one MUST select a feat? I believe in the same place that says you MUST advance a level upon reaching sufficient Experience....Where does it say that you can wait to take feats? It specifically says that you may hold off gaining a level to spend the XP in other ways. The D&D rules tell you what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T. For you to be able to do something, you have to have a rule that says that you can. There are no rules saying that you can 'delay' the acquisition of a feat.
Red_Wizard 11-15-07, 02:42 PM	There are a lot of things that the rule don't tell you, that if you simply didn't house rule would stop the game dead indefinably. Where the rules leave off, the DM and players must pick up and "Wing". Also rules are meant as guidelines to be referenced, not a law to obey to the T. Fun is ultimately the goal, and saying one "Can't" do something is restricting to the story. Lastly the rules state what you can and cannot do. There are plenty that say "You Cannot" do this or that, which basically makes your statement invalid. ;) -RW
BugHunter 11-15-07, 08:09 PM	Actually, I'm pretty sure that RAW says you get max HP at 1st level but I'm away from books at the moment. RAW in PHB page 23 "For his or her first Hit Die, a 1st level character gets the maximum hit points rather than rolling (although Constitution modifiers, positive or negative, still apply.)"
risner 11-16-07, 02:33 PM	There is a big difference between playing the game with a storyline, and Character Op. Did you have a point in your book? I didn't mean to hold off until 20 to take all your feats, I mean to hold off 1 or 2 levels to get into PrC classes 2 or 3 levels early which leads to a destructive road later on down the lines. Every single build I do has 1 or more junk feats (feats I took but didn't want) because I couldn't' take anything else useful at that level (due to not having prereqs.)
Frugal 11-16-07, 02:48 PM	Every single build I do has 1 or more junk feats (feats I took but didn't want) because I couldn't' take anything else useful at that level (due to not having prereqs.) Exactly, and what people in favour of delaying feats forget is that it's part of the balancing mechanism inherent in the system. For instance, if they put a feat with a +10 BAB prerequisite then they know that the earliest most classes could take this feat would be at 12th level. Why not make it +12 BAB? Because then that would further delay 3/4 BAB progression classes from taking the feat. Not to mention that fighters get a bonus feat at 10th level so could gain earlier access to the feat. All of this can go into balancing the power of the feat because they'll know who will have access to the feat and when. If you could delay your 9th level feat and take this feat at 10th then that could through things out of whack.
Red_Wizard 11-16-07, 03:07 PM	Did you have a point in your book? I didn't mean to hold off until 20 to take all your feats, I mean to hold off 1 or 2 levels to get into PrC classes 2 or 3 levels early which leads to a destructive road later on down the lines. Every single build I do has 1 or more junk feats (feats I took but didn't want) because I couldn't' take anything else useful at that level (due to not having prereqs.) Could you show me an example where holding off on a feat, could qualify you early for a PRC. -RW
Legdiwena 11-16-07, 03:32 PM	Loremaster, requires 3 metamagic or item creation feats. If you don't choose any metamagic, and hold one of your bonus feats for being human, you could take scribe scroll at 1, Craft Wondrous Item at 3, Craft Wand at 5 and access the PrC at 6, would otherwise have to wait until 7 going this route with a non-wizard.
risner 11-17-07, 12:30 AM	Could you show me an example where holding off on a feat, could qualify you early for a PRC. -RW Two examples: 1) Superior Unarmed Strike needs +3 BAB, so you can't build a Fighter/Monk and take any Monk levels before 4th level if you plan on taking your SUS feat at 3rd. If you wanted Monk 1/Fighter 3 as your first 4 levels, you would have to delay the Monk level for 3 levels or you will end up delaying SUS to a 6th level feat which would delay taking Improved Natural Attack (+4 BAB) at 6th to 9th. 2) As for delaying a PrC, any feat with a pre-req will trip you on this. For example, if you need Extra Turning (like RSoP), but you can't get turning until 7th level (the turning providing PrC you want/need), then you can't take Extra Turning as your 6th feat (since you don't have turning) which would bump your RSoP to 9th level instead of 8th level or earlier. But by you asking the question, I can tell you never run into these troubles when building characters. I honestly don't think I have built a character in the last year that didn't run into this trouble. In that time I have built at least 10+ high level characters (since I hand build ever BBEG in my campaigns I run.)
Red_Wizard 11-19-07, 09:41 AM	Loremaster, requires 3 metamagic or item creation feats. If you don't choose any metamagic, and hold one of your bonus feats for being human, you could take scribe scroll at 1, Craft Wondrous Item at 3, Craft Wand at 5 and access the PrC at 6, would otherwise have to wait until 7 going this route with a non-wizard. Your example is flawed in three ways unfortunately. 1) Loremaster requires you to have 10 ranks in two skills, meaning regardless of anything else, you still HAVE to be 8th level minimum to take this PrC -- Qualifying ofcourse at 7th. 2) Even forgoing my DM ruling, you still can get all those things. Scribe Scroll is free at first level for a Wizard. Everyone gets a free feat at 3rd level, to which you can Take Craft Wondrous item, and at 5th level the Wizard gets a bonus feat, that can then be used for Craft Wand. 3) If you wish to qualify for this as a non-wizard, I must assume then that you are going the route via sorcerer. In such an instance, I would rule it fine for the human to save his feat, as the Sorc still can't cast third level spells until 6th level and the loremaster requires 7 divination spells to be known, one of which is 3rd level. So, if the sorcerer is willing to make himself useless with all those divination spells, I hardly think holding off on one feat can possibly break him. ;) Let's also over look the fact he'd need one more feat on top of that to qualify for the skill knowledge feat. ;) So your example not only doesn't prove that my ruling would allow for earlier PrC access, but you are also overlooking the other requirements of the PrC in example. -RW
Red_Wizard 11-19-07, 09:47 AM	Two examples: 1) Superior Unarmed Strike needs +3 BAB, so you can't build a Fighter/Monk and take any Monk levels before 4th level if you plan on taking your SUS feat at 3rd. If you wanted Monk 1/Fighter 3 as your first 4 levels, you would have to delay the Monk level for 3 levels or you will end up delaying SUS to a 6th level feat which would delay taking Improved Natural Attack (+4 BAB) at 6th to 9th. 2) As for delaying a PrC, any feat with a pre-req will trip you on this. For example, if you need Extra Turning (like RSoP), but you can't get turning until 7th level (the turning providing PrC you want/need), then you can't take Extra Turning as your 6th feat (since you don't have turning) which would bump your RSoP to 9th level instead of 8th level or earlier. I Wasn't asking about delaying ones ability to take a PrC though, I was asking how one might enter it faster. Neither of the examples given by you, or Legdiwena show why delaying a feat would be bad, or broken. So I must then still draw the conclusion that is is not only fair to do, it is potentially hurtful to the PC wishing to do so, and in no way beneficial. But by you asking the question, I can tell you never run into these troubles when building characters. I honestly don't think I have built a character in the last year that didn't run into this trouble. In that time I have built at least 10+ high level characters (since I hand build ever BBEG in my campaigns I run.) It was actually more rhetorical, as I am quite certain that holding off on a feat will never permit entrance into a PrC earlier. Why? Because all PrC's generally have at least one level specific prereq that means no matter what, you can still only enter the class a level X. -RW I Wasn't asking about delaying ones ability to take a PrC though, I was asking how one might enter it faster. Neither of the examples given by you, or Legdiwena show why delaying a feat would be bad, or broken. So I must then still draw the conclusion that is is not only fair to do, it is potentially hurtful to the PC wishing to do so, and in no way beneficial. -RW
Qube 11-19-07, 10:16 AM	Because you are opting to sacrifice a feat slot for an entire level, just for the benifit of using it later. That in and of itself isn't broken, and if anything could prove detrimental to the character who is down the feat option.I'dd stop taking feats and wait till lvl 21 ... most classes can work without the 8 feats, and, boy am I gonna have fun at lvl 21 ...
Red_Wizard 11-19-07, 11:39 AM	I'dd stop taking feats and wait till lvl 21 ... most classes can work without the 8 feats, and, boy am I gonna have fun at lvl 21 ... Assuming you make 21st level. Also, factor in the time it takes to reach 21st level, and most people will feel inadequate next to the rest of the party who can do more interesting things. Not to mention the unlikelihood of most parties playing past 21st level. And lastly, I allow the delay of taking a feat for logical storyline, not for powergaming, of character OPing. If there is a Character reason for taking a Feat, but you must wait a few levels to get it, fine. But as I said before, if you want to powergame, or make an optimized character, why are you playing DnD? -RW
risner 11-19-07, 02:08 PM	I Wasn't asking about delaying ones ability to take a PrC though, I was asking how one might enter it faster. Re-read my post. Delaying a PrC is hurtful, since you enter the PrC later than you wish. With the delay you end up taking other classes or PrC levels you didn't want but didn't have a choice. In other words, you could have more levels of more PrC classes with delayed feats than without delayed feats. In the end, if feats were free to take at any point as you suggest you could build significantly more powerful characters. If you can't see that immediately, then you must not put much thought into building characters as it should be obvious.
Frugal 11-19-07, 02:32 PM	I Wasn't asking about delaying ones ability to take a PrC though, I was asking how one might enter it faster. Neither of the examples given by you, or Legdiwena show why delaying a feat would be bad, or broken. So I must then still draw the conclusion that is is not only fair to do, it is potentially hurtful to the PC wishing to do so, and in no way beneficial. I think you failed to understand the examples. The first one discussed how to gain superior unarmed strike earlier, or without delaying when you could take certain classes. If you want to make a monk/fighter build you'd probably want to take the monk level 1st (for skill points if nothing else), but you want to take Superior Unarmed Strike as soon as possible, but it requires a +3 BAB. If you do Monk at 1st level you have to wait until 6th level to get this feat since it's not a fighter bonus feat (if memory serves), which prevents you from taking Improved Natural Attack at 6th level and pushes that back to 9th level. That's a significant change. If you allow delaying feats, you could delay your 3rd level feat and take SUS at 4th level. You also can't make it work by taking 3 levels of fighter first because SUS requires Improved Unarmed Strike, which you get from Monk anyway so taking it as a fighter feat would be a waste. The second example was showing how delaying a feat could allow you to take Radiant Servant of Pelor at least 1 level earlier than otherwise (sorry, weaker on the prerequisites for that one so I can't give more details).
Red_Wizard 11-19-07, 02:40 PM	Re-read my post. Delaying a PrC is hurtful, since you enter the PrC later than you wish. With the delay you end up taking other classes or PrC levels you didn't want but didn't have a choice. In other words, you could have more levels of more PrC classes with delayed feats than without delayed feats. If you want to enter a PrC you build your character around that, so I fail to see why you'd delay a feat, to hurt yourself. I mean if I knew the PrC I wanted to take need something like skill knowledge, I'd take the feat when I could, not hold off on it for no reason. In the end, if feats were free to take at any point as you suggest you could build significantly more powerful characters. If you can't see that immediately, then you must not put much thought into building characters as it should be obvious. I can see how starting with a high level character, and optimizing, you might be able to make a more powerful character by saying you delay all your feats. However, for a real game, taking into account what I have mentioned, you have failed to point out how it could be broken. And last time I checked, this wasn't the character OP board, so I am assuming that the question pertains to actual DnD, not "Look how l337 my character can be". As for how much thought I do or don't put into the build, I don't see how it is relevant. I can say I focus entirely around it, but unless you game with me, how would you know whether I am lying or not. You can't, so arguing with you on that point wouldn't get me far now would it. ;) :P Needless to say, I am talking story, and you are assuming OP. Whether or not it really would make a character more powerful would need to be tested. -RW
Frugal 11-19-07, 03:25 PM	If you want to enter a PrC you build your character around that, so I fail to see why you'd delay a feat, to hurt yourself. I mean if I knew the PrC I wanted to take need something like skill knowledge, I'd take the feat when I could, not hold off on it for no reason. No, the point is to delay taking a feat so that you can qualify for a PrC earlier. A lot of feats have prerequisites that might not be met when you have a free feat slot. The +3 BAB example is a great one, suppose you have a class with a 3/4 BAB progression, you can't meet that prerequisite at 3rd level since you'd only have a +2 BAB at that point, you get +3 BAB at 4th level but don't gain a feat until 6th level. So if that +3 BAB feat is required to enter a PrC then you can't enter the PrC until 7th level, whereas with delaying the feat you can take it at 4th level and possibly qualify as early as 5th level (depending on what the other prerequisites are).
risner 11-19-07, 04:09 PM	If you want to enter a PrC you build your character around that, so I fail to see why you'd delay a feat, to hurt yourself. I mean if I knew the PrC I wanted to take need something like skill knowledge, I'd take the feat when I could, not hold off on it for no reason. Frugal did a better job of explaining it in excruciating detail. In short, you never delay for no reason. The point is to build a character to a PrC as fast as possible and if you allow for delaying feats as you propose you will be able to build a more powerful character faster always. You seems to be under the impression that I could simply take the feats earlier and I need no reason to delay them. If that were true, I'd have a silly reason to delay ("no reason" as you put it.) But If delaying a feat from say 3rd to 4th were allowed, I could build a significantly more powerful character than normally possible. This isn't by the rules and isn't fair to others in your game.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 10:05 AM	However the option remains open to all, and is allowed when reason is given. Thus it is unfair to any one player, and potentially hurtful to the one delaying. Additionally, delaying the feat, while perhaps getting you one sooner, isn't overpowered as you still must meet the prereqs of the feat. Simply because you could possibly get the feat at 4th, rather than 6th is of little consequence as you can qualify for the one in example by 4th anyway. That said, within the rules, I can take that feat you suggested by 4th level regardless, simply by doing Human fighter 2/ Human paragon 2. I then have a base attack bonus of 3, and as a fighter bonus feat take improved unarmed strike at first. Then, on the following level, they can take 1 level of monk, as per your original build, and at 6th have a feat slot left over to take the natural attack feat -- A feat that I will point out isn't necessarily qualified for simply by having improved unarmed strike, much in the same manner Supernatural Transformation won't work with the Warlocks Eldritch blast, unless rule zeroed. So whether they do it by the rules, or delay the feat as I suggest, they are able to get it regardless. -RW
Bopple 11-20-07, 10:39 AM	During the process, you had to waste your 1st bonus feat on IUS and lost 1 BAB. This is obviously less powerful than delaying feats. And Human paragon is far from a good example. Most DM's ban Unearthed Arcana. Once I made a human ranger/scout character. I had to take weapon focus for my 1st-lvl bonus feat. There are lots of better feats out there - Improved Favored Enemy, Swift Hunter, Improved Skirmish, Woodland Archer and ect. If feat delaying were allowed, why would anyone take weapon focus over such choices, unless your adventure ends before 3rd lvl?
Frugal 11-20-07, 10:48 AM	However the option remains open to all, and is allowed when reason is given. Thus it is unfair to any one player, and potentially hurtful to the one delaying. Giving everyone access to something that's broken doesn't make it any less broken. And relying on the DM to balance this goes against the design philosophy of 3ed, not to mention any possible issues where something might appear benign at that level but could end up being unbalanced at a higher level or that the DM might just not grasp all of the implications of allowing something like this when the player requests it. Additionally, delaying the feat, while perhaps getting you one sooner, isn't overpowered as you still must meet the prereqs of the feat. Simply because you could possibly get the feat at 4th, rather than 6th is of little consequence as you can qualify for the one in example by 4th anyway. Except that the prerequisites are at least somewhat built around a knowledge of when you gain feats, which determines who can gain access to a certain feat and when. A feat with +4 BAB prerequisite that can be used as a fighter bonus feat can only be taken by a fighter at 4th level while any other class has to wait until 6th level. In the hands of a 4th level fighter it might not be unbalancing but it might be unbalancing to be in the hands of, say, a 4th level barbarian who delayed taking his 3rd level feat. That said, within the rules, I can take that feat you suggested by 4th level regardless, simply by doing Human fighter 2/ Human paragon 2. I then have a base attack bonus of 3, and as a fighter bonus feat take improved unarmed strike at first. Then, on the following level, they can take 1 level of monk, as per your original build, and at 6th have a feat slot left over to take the natural attack feat -- A feat that I will point out isn't necessarily qualified for simply by having improved unarmed strike, much in the same manner Supernatural Transformation won't work with the Warlocks Eldritch blast, unless rule zeroed. Except that you've missed the entire point. The point was to take a monk level within your first 3 levels. I'm thinking 1st level for skill point reasons. You're also using optional rules from Unearthed Arcana which might not be allowed in a campaign so that's problematic and you're also wasting a feat by taking Improved Unarmed Strike as a fighter bonus feat when you get it as a bonus feat with the 1st level of Monk (and no benefit for already having it). You failed at all the goals of the build as far as I can tell. You don't have a monk level in the first 3 levels. You waste a feat. You don't get a Monk level until 5th level (delaying your access to flurry of blows for instance). All in all, it shows that you completely failed to understand what the example presented and why it would be overpowering.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 11:21 AM	Giving everyone access to something that's broken doesn't make it any less broken. It remains your opinion that it is broken. I have not yet found it to be, nor can I see it being, unless your goal is to break the character via OPing it at high levels. And relying on the DM to balance this goes against the design philosophy of 3ed, not to mention any possible issues where something might appear benign at that level but could end up being unbalanced at a higher level or that the DM might just not grasp all of the implications of allowing something like this when the player requests it. I never said that it was something anyone had to do, merely put it out there as an option to be done. I have done it, and been allowed to do it, and thus far nothing has cropped up broken with it. People can carry on all day about how they think it is broken, but I can assure you that delaying one or two feats will never break the game to the extent of the Cleric of Mystra, a build completely legal within the rules. So even if what I suggest can in some way be broken, I will note that the system can easily be manipulated without the DM's aid by the players, and if that is the goal of the player, whether or not the DM opts to use this rule, will not change the desired outcome. Except that the prerequisites are at least somewhat built around a knowledge of when you gain feats, which determines who can gain access to a certain feat and when. And using the system I have showed you how to get around my rules, and achieve the same goal. A feat with +4 BAB prerequisite that can be used as a fighter bonus feat can only be taken by a fighter at 4th level while any other class has to wait until 6th level. In the hands of a 4th level fighter it might not be unbalancing but it might be unbalancing to be in the hands of, say, a 4th level barbarian who delayed taking his 3rd level feat. This depends on whether you are referring to a fighter only feat, to which I ponder on how a non fighter could take it, or if you are referring to a feat the fighter could take simply by way of his bonus feat, sooner than any other class. Either way, if the player desperately wants said feat, and refuses to take it at a later level, one might question why they didn't simply take fighter levels all along. You example seems to be geared towards optimaising a character again, and I am very adamantly stating this house rule is not for character OP. Except that you've missed the entire point. The point was to take a monk level within your first 3 levels. I'm thinking 1st level for skill point reasons. As you and others are continuing to try and use character OP examples, I fail to see why anyone would want a level of monk at first. Obviously there is a build in mind that demands they have certain feats as soon as possible, and given the lack of abilities a monk gets, versus the amount of feats a fighter gets, one could logically conclude that the monk level is only there to try and disprove something I suggest, while "tipping ones hat", so to speak at the fact I said storyline oriented reasons. Truthfully, I have only seen anyone use this option to take a feat they wanted, when there were no other feats they felt truly represented their characters abilities. Perhaps when I decided to game with powergamers, I'll reconsider this ruling. You're also using optional rules from Unearthed Arcana which might not be allowed in a campaign so that's problematic and you're also wasting a feat by taking Improved Unarmed Strike as a fighter bonus feat when you get it as a bonus feat with the 1st level of Monk (and no benefit for already having it). First, the option to use or ignore unearthed arcana is a personal one, and to properly argue, we must assume that all sources are to be made available. Otherwise the argument of Superior Unarmed strike becomes a moot one. Additionally I think that a fighter sacking one bonus feat at first, to gain what a monk gets for free, in order to achieve earlier what he wanted is a fair trade off. Obviously with you example the player cares nothing for story, as they are focusing so heavily upon the rules, so by the numbers my build is the superior one. You failed at all the goals of the build as far as I can tell. The goal of the initial build was to show me how a feat could be taken sooner than the rules permit. I built an alternative character that showed the rules allow for the goal of feat acquisition sooner, as per the demand. You can argue my method is breaking, however the rules would disagree with the your example. You don't have a monk level in the first 3 levels. Something I don't see as mandatory for someone building an optimized character. You waste a feat. A feat that the first level monk would not have. The trade off of one feat gets the same result of Improved unarmed strike, so there is no loss, and the gain is by the rules what I suggest in an alternative fashion. This is not looking at the PHB2 rules on rebuilding a character either. You don't get a Monk level until 5th level (delaying your access to flurry of blows for instance). But by the rules gaining both the desired feats in the same time frame laid out, and by 6th level the build is 2 fighter/ 2 HuPa/ 2 monk, and the effect is the same as if they had built using the "save your feat" rule. By the rules I am doing what you claim can't be done. Your argument becomes null, as the rest of their debate noted the bumping ahead of natural attack from 6th-9th. This build fills all the recquirments. All in all, it shows that you completely failed to understand what the example presented and why it would be overpowering. If you want to be snarky, then do it on your own time with someone who cares. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the example given, that is through no fault of my own. Until someone shows me something that can't be done with the rules normally, then I'm sorry, it's TFL. -RW p.s. I'm disappointed to share a province and city with someone sporting such a close minded attitude as yours.
Bopple 11-20-07, 11:43 AM	1. Unearthed Arcana is not comparable to other splatbooks. It is a collection of variant rules - which means it's no different from a house-rule. It is one of the least popular book, along with Ghostwalk, Tome of Magic and Weapons of Legacy. While Tome of Battle is not much of a popular book, lots of DM's allow non-martial stuffs in the book, even if they banned martial feats and classes. And this is why there are less builds of Unearthed Arcana character, in CO board. 2. Just because you and your friends do not exploit the potential brokenness, you can declare your house-rule is viable and balanced? No. That's your personal experience. It's potentially risky to allow it. And I and others here showed you what can be achieved with the opened can of worm. There are a lot broken stuffs out there. So what? Does it make any other less broken? To the contrary, it would produce even more broken stuffs. Is it what you really want? 3. Taking skill-monkey class as 1st level is one of the cornerstone of character optimization.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 11:58 AM	1. Calling it less comparable, in no way rules it out as valid. 2. Just because I don't exploit the system doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws either. The point is sometimes you play with rules that MAY be broken -- which I hardly think this is -- in order to achieve the desired result, which for me is good storyline. 3. Perhaps for some. I don't often skill monkey off the bat when making an uber build, but hey, to each their own. -RW
risner 11-20-07, 11:59 AM	But by the rules gaining both the desired feats in the same time frame laid out, and by 6th level the build is 2 fighter/ 2 HuPa/ 2 monk, and the effect is the same as if they had built using the "save your feat" rule. You took Human Paragon, but I am not a human for that Monk. You used UA material which is banned in the game. You lost 2 BAB, which the character lost only 1 BAB in the whole progression to 9th. You delayed access to Weapon Specialization which I got at 5th level to possibly as high as 8th level. You delayed access to Melee Weapon Mastery which I got at 9th to some level past that point. In short taking those 2 levels of Human Paragon required I be a Human and delayed my progression by 2 levels and 1 BAB.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 12:38 PM	You took Human Paragon, but I am not a human for that Monk. The build was to show that if someone wanted to do what you called broken, the rules allowed it. Ergo, it would be no more or less breaking to allow what I suggested. This is quite simple. You used UA material which is banned in the game. Either you are changing this rule for the argument to try and prove me wrong, or you are stating a houserule of your home campaign. Either way it won't fly. You lost 2 BAB, which the character lost only 1 BAB in the whole progression to 9th. Granted, but if I take a third level in human paragon before 9th, then I get the +2 to any stat, and could feasibly apply that to strength, thus making up the difference. You delayed access to Weapon Specialization which I got at 5th level to possibly as high as 8th level. Not part of the original argument, but ok. The point wasn't suggesting that nothing would be lost, only that the argument given was possible without me. You delayed access to Melee Weapon Mastery which I got at 9th to some level past that point. If I take away the monk levels I can be back on track sooner, getting the weapon specialization at 6th, taking the 3rd level of human paragon at 8th then getting weapon mastery at 9th as intended. In short taking those 2 levels of Human Paragon required I be a Human and delayed my progression by 2 levels and 1 BAB. In short, taking away unnecessary monk levels one can still get all they really want. I mean we can get picky, but then that really makes this all moot. Needless to say we are evidently at an agree to disagree crossroads. The OP asked a question, to which I gave an opinion based on experience. You opt to not do things this way, and I vote to. -RW
Frugal 11-20-07, 12:55 PM	It remains your opinion that it is broken. I have not yet found it to be, nor can I see it being, unless your goal is to break the character via OPing it at high levels. Ah, so if it's broken it's character op so therefore doesn't fit into your "story-based only" guideline so isn't allowed, therefore wouldn't be allowed by your house rule. Do you not see how under that criteria it's impossible to ever show it as broken because you automatically discard anything that's broken? And again, who determines if something is broken? At what point do you declare it's broken? Something might not seem broken at 4th level but might end up broken at 16th, and could still very well be done for completely legitimate story reasons or character concept (and not just the concept of making a "powerful" character). People can carry on all day about how they think it is broken, but I can assure you that delaying one or two feats will never break the game to the extent of the Cleric of Mystra, a build completely legal within the rules. So even if what I suggest can in some way be broken, I will note that the system can easily be manipulated without the DM's aid by the players, and if that is the goal of the player, whether or not the DM opts to use this rule, will not change the desired outcome. The existence of other broken rules (although I'm unfamiliar with the build) should never be used as your basis of comparison. Especially when the only balancing mechanic in your proposed house rule is whether you deem that something is for character concept rather than for character optimisation. And using the system I have showed you how to get around my rules, and achieve the same goal. Not when the goal includes having monk levels early on. I mentioned reasons such as skill points (more from the monk than fighter, useful at 1st level especially since the class skills are different and you might want access to some of those skills at lower levels). There's a number of low level monk abilities that might be essential for the character concept. Off the top of my head, it's the only way to create a low level character that has any unarmed strike capability (1d3 normal damage being utterly pitiful, this is mitigated with SUS at higher levels but requires waiting until +3 BAB), you gain class skills that might fit the concept (balance, tumble, diplomacy, sense motive, listen, spot, move silently, hide, etc), you gain flurry of blows which works well with the martial artist concept as well. So let's attach a character concept to this so it doesn't look so much like an optimisation exercise. I want to make a martial artist, I want him to fight unarmed, I want to focus on DEX. This all sounds like the monk but I don't like the mystical aspects of the class so I really only want to take the first 2 levels of monk because up to that point things are much more mundane. Okay, maybe I'll go 3 levels because of the fast movement helps with my mobility concept, still mind could be mental discipline, but that's my limit, I'll decide later. So I guess I'll build a fighter x/monk 2 or 3. That's the extent of my planning. Now we'll start with 1st level monk since that gives me all the unarmed stuff right off the bat and the skills list covers more of what I want to be able to do "out of the box". Now after 1st level maybe I want to take some fighter levels (maybe to avoid multiclass penalties, maybe to get some bonus feats that fit my concept, maybe part of my concept includes disarming a lot and I want improved disarm as quickly as possible, etc). Honestly it doesn't matter, I could just go for a straight 3 levels of monk to start out with. The issue is that without allowing to delay when I take feats there's no way to take SUS before 6th level since it's not a fighter bonus feat (if memory serves, away from books at the moment, please correct if I'm wrong here but that kinda throws off this whole example, which wasn't my example to begin with). Obviously I'm going to want to improve my unarmed strike damage as much as I can because fists are difficult/impossible to enchant and I want a viable character at higher levels. I want to take both SUS and INA. But, there's no way for me to have both of these feats (by RAW) before 9th level. The difference is that at 6th level I can take one of the feats, doesn't matter which, it will pump me up to 1d8 for unarmed strike damage, at 9th I take the other one and now I'm at 2d6 damage from the combination (increased to large size, and in the level 4-7 range for monk unarmed strike damage), not exactly broken by 9th level, just about making my character remotely viable (and without magic enhancements this is going to be problematic). Now, let's use delaying feats, I delay my 3rd level feat and take SUS at 4th level, getting my 1d8 damage 2 levels earlier, I then take INA at 6th level, giving me 2d6 damage 3 levels earlier. Now it might not be all the broken, but it does illustrate how it allows for a build that would otherwise be impossible to achieve. This depends on whether you are referring to a fighter only feat, to which I ponder on how a non fighter could take it, or if you are referring to a feat the fighter could take simply by way of his bonus feat, sooner than any other class. Either way, if the player desperately wants said feat, and refuses to take it at a later level, one might question why they didn't simply take fighter levels all along. You example seems to be geared towards optimaising a character again, and I am very adamantly stating this house rule is not for character OP. Because fighter levels might not fit his concept? Because doing a dip might incur multiclass penalties? There's a host of reasons for why he might want the feat but not want fighter levels. And it's not about not taking the feat later, it's about whether you could take the feat earlier and if this would be broken. As you and others are continuing to try and use character OP examples, I fail to see why anyone would want a level of monk at first. Obviously there is a build in mind that demands they have certain feats as soon as possible, and given the lack of abilities a monk gets, versus the amount of feats a fighter gets, one could logically conclude that the monk level is only there to try and disprove something I suggest, while "tipping ones hat", so to speak at the fact I said storyline oriented reasons. I want to play a concept from 1st level and actually have some semblance of my planned abilities. See my above monk example for how this applies. Having to wait until 4th or 5th level for the monk levels to show up means that until then I'm really not playing the concept as I'm missing a number of abilities and skills. Immediately dismissing any example we provide as being "character optimisation" doesn't make your argument appear any stronger. Truthfully, I have only seen anyone use this option to take a feat they wanted, when there were no other feats they felt truly represented their characters abilities. Which is exactly why I'd want to take a level of monk as my first level. Perhaps when I decided to game with powergamers, I'll reconsider this ruling. Throwing around "powergamer" as if it's an insult also doesn't help your case. I agree that it's great that you have a group that appears to be more interested solely in their character concept. Honestly, that's how I play too, I want to play a particular concept, and I don't do a lot of min/maxing. However, there is a point where optimisation is desirable because unfortunately, in 3ed, there are plenty of viable character concepts that result in sub-optimal builds and that's not fun to play and not fun for the rest of the party when you're not carrying your weight. We really should be past the point where people believe that you have to play a nerfed concept in order to be roleplaying and that if you make a powerful character (or one that balances with the rest of the party's abilities even) then you must just be a powergamer and not interested in roleplay. First, the option to use or ignore unearthed arcana is a personal one, and to properly argue, we must assume that all sources are to be made available. Otherwise the argument of Superior Unarmed strike becomes a moot one. Everything in UA is listed as optional rules, therefore far more questionable than other supplements. Additionally I think that a fighter sacking one bonus feat at first, to gain what a monk gets for free, in order to achieve earlier what he wanted is a fair trade off. Obviously with you example the player cares nothing for story, as they are focusing so heavily upon the rules, so by the numbers my build is the superior one. Again, you're simply dismissing our example as nothing to do with the story because it goes against what you've been saying. We end up taking a feat that's not needed (wasting one of the most limited resources in the game) as well as taking a level in a class that includes a wasted class feature (the human paragon's bonus caster level). Pointing out these short comings isn't focusing too much on the rules it's saying that I want to make a character that fits my concept and also creates a viable build. I provided a character concept above which has nothing to do with the rules but do explain why I'd want monk as my 1st character level and has nothing to do with powergaming beyond wanting to keep pace with the rest of the party. The goal of the initial build was to show me how a feat could be taken sooner than the rules permit. I built an alternative character that showed the rules allow for the goal of feat acquisition sooner, as per the demand. Not when the "challenge" (not mine btw, I simply added explanations) was to include monk levels early on, and I've provided story reasons for that. A feat that the first level monk would not have. The trade off of one feat gets the same result of Improved unarmed strike, so there is no loss, and the gain is by the rules what I suggest in an alternative fashion. The monk gets improved unarmed strike at first level as a bonus feat, so yes it is a feat they would have had and is a waste because it requires taking a fighter bonus feat that's going to be made redundant as soon as a monk level is taken. This is not looking at the PHB2 rules on rebuilding a character either. True enough, personally I've never liked them much but that is a personal choice. I could see if for earth shattering changes that would completely alter the character but I'm not sure I really like it for other reasons, particularly in cases where it means that you can choose options that are great for your current power level but not as good for later levels but then wipe them out with better options when you get to that higher level. Granted, if a player came to me and said they were unhappy with their character because it wasn't measuring up and they'd found a better way to build the concept I'd probably be inclined to allow them to rebuild the character in the new way if it stuck to the original concept. The SUS/INA example is more an example of getting access to something earlier so it's an example of how delaying a feat means you gain something earlier, rebuilding the character could result in them gaining the feats they wanted at a higher level, or to fix that wasted feat. But by the rules gaining both the desired feats in the same time frame laid out, and by 6th level the build is 2 fighter/ 2 HuPa/ 2 monk, and the effect is the same as if they had built using the "save your feat" rule. But with delaying a feat I can build a Monk3/Fighter 3 and have the same feats, not have as many multiclass penalties concerns (only 2 classes), have the fast movement from the 3rd monk level, better saves, my monk levels at 1st level (see above), etc. If you want to be snarky, then do it on your own time with someone who cares. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the example given, that is through no fault of my own. Until someone shows me something that can't be done with the rules normally, then I'm sorry, it's TFL. -RW p.s. I'm disappointed to share a province and city with someone sporting such a close minded attitude as yours. I was a little harsh earlier on. You can obviously tell there's some frustration because it's impossible to frame a proper debate with someone if they simply change the rules at any point by saying your counter example is "optimising". Honestly, that comes across as pretty close minded too with what you've been saying about "powergamers" and the assumptions you've been making that anything that disagrees with what you're saying is ignoring story.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 01:51 PM	Ah, so if it's broken it's character op so therefore doesn't fit into your "story-based only" guideline so isn't allowed, therefore wouldn't be allowed by your house rule. Do you not see how under that criteria it's impossible to ever show it as broken because you automatically discard anything that's broken? I'm not saying character OP is broken, but it isn't the goal in a story driven campaign. I use story to help balance ANYTHING that could be construed as broken. Broken is simply the term given, though unbalanced is probably preferable. And again, who determines if something is broken? Apparently those arguing with me. ;) At what point do you declare it's broken? Something might not seem broken at 4th level but might end up broken at 16th, and could still very well be done for completely legitimate story reasons or character concept (and not just the concept of making a "powerful" character). I declare it broken when a PC is capable of doing something that normally would be reserved for a character at least twice it's level. If however choices at 4th, unbalance the build at 16th, one must go back and reevaluate the build to find the error. As I have said though, I haven't yet had an issue with this ruling. Apparently it isn't for everyone, but I wasn't here to argue it should be. ;) The existence of other broken rules (although I'm unfamiliar with the build) should never be used as your basis of comparison. Especially when the only balancing mechanic in your proposed house rule is whether you deem that something is for character concept rather than for character optimisation. I normally would not, however when one wishes to argue that the rules could be broken by a houserule, I will be quick to point out that houserules are not needed for the most broken builds the rules can create. The one I refer to in this instance allows for Supernatural wishes, castable within antimagic, or dead-magic areas. It is a class designed to win, even if they lose. That to me is far more overpowered than saving one feat for a level or two. I am not suggesting one should defend a broken ruling with the rules, merely that one cannot argue that the rules themselves are outside of what is "broken". Not when the goal includes having monk levels early on. I mentioned reasons such as skill points (more from the monk than fighter, useful at 1st level especially since the class skills are different and you might want access to some of those skills at lower levels). There's a number of low level monk abilities that might be essential for the character concept. Off the top of my head, it's the only way to create a low level character that has any unarmed strike capability (1d3 normal damage being utterly pitiful, this is mitigated with SUS at higher levels but requires waiting until +3 BAB), you gain class skills that might fit the concept (balance, tumble, diplomacy, sense motive, listen, spot, move silently, hide, etc), you gain flurry of blows which works well with the martial artist concept as well. So let's attach a character concept to this so it doesn't look so much like an optimisation exercise. I want to make a martial artist, I want him to fight unarmed, I want to focus on DEX. This all sounds like the monk but I don't like the mystical aspects of the class so I really only want to take the first 2 levels of monk because up to that point things are much more mundane. Okay, maybe I'll go 3 levels because of the fast movement helps with my mobility concept, still mind could be mental discipline, but that's my limit, I'll decide later. So I guess I'll build a fighter x/monk 2 or 3. That's the extent of my planning. Now we'll start with 1st level monk since that gives me all the unarmed stuff right off the bat and the skills list covers more of what I want to be able to do "out of the box". Now after 1st level maybe I want to take some fighter levels (maybe to avoid multiclass penalties, maybe to get some bonus feats that fit my concept, maybe part of my concept includes disarming a lot and I want improved disarm as quickly as possible, etc). Honestly it doesn't matter, I could just go for a straight 3 levels of monk to start out with. The issue is that without allowing to delay when I take feats there's no way to take SUS before 6th level since it's not a fighter bonus feat (if memory serves, away from books at the moment, please correct if I'm wrong here but that kinda throws off this whole example, which wasn't my example to begin with). Obviously I'm going to want to improve my unarmed strike damage as much as I can because fists are difficult/impossible to enchant and I want a viable character at higher levels. I want to take both SUS and INA. But, there's no way for me to have both of these feats (by RAW) before 9th level. The difference is that at 6th level I can take one of the feats, doesn't matter which, it will pump me up to 1d8 for unarmed strike damage, at 9th I take the other one and now I'm at 2d6 damage from the combination (increased to large size, and in the level 4-7 range for monk unarmed strike damage), not exactly broken by 9th level, just about making my character remotely viable (and without magic enhancements this is going to be problematic). Now, let's use delaying feats, I delay my 3rd level feat and take SUS at 4th level, getting my 1d8 damage 2 levels earlier, I then take INA at 6th level, giving me 2d6 damage 3 levels earlier. Now it might not be all the broken, but it does illustrate how it allows for a build that would otherwise be impossible to achieve. Since my point was being missed, I'll try once more, all summed up here. I wasn't trying to recreate said build to a T, merely show that the example given was possible within the rules. The build you created, even with a storyline I'd be content seeing, while not normally gaining access to the feat at said level, could not in my books be ruled as broken, due to the possibility of another build being able to aquire the feat early by the rules. If two PC's came to me, one with your idea and a story, and one with mine designed to op, I'd rule in favour of the story character over the OP one, simply due to validating why the feat would be delayed. Do you see what I'm getting at. How is it breaking the game, if another PC could have what you'd want me to rule against another gaining within the rules? Because fighter levels might not fit his concept? Because doing a dip might incur multiclass penalties? There's a host of reasons for why he might want the feat but not want fighter levels. And it's not about not taking the feat later, it's about whether you could take the feat earlier and if this would be broken. Which is what I was arguing. From my POV, I do not see it as being broken, as another PC could feasibly do it. So why should I penalize someone for building a character storywise, simply because it involves interpreting what the rules don't expand upon? I want to play a concept from 1st level and actually have some semblance of my planned abilities. See my above monk example for how this applies. Having to wait until 4th or 5th level for the monk levels to show up means that until then I'm really not playing the concept as I'm missing a number of abilities and skills. Immediately dismissing any example we provide as being "character optimisation" doesn't make your argument appear any stronger. But ignoring what I am saying makes those here seem ignorant. Just because one build could gain the feat by my rules, shouldn't make it broken, as another character could gain the feat by the games rules. If the game rules it fair, why shouldn't I? Which is exactly why I'd want to take a level of monk as my first level. Where then is our problem? Throwing around "powergamer" as if it's an insult also doesn't help your case. I agree that it's great that you have a group that appears to be more interested solely in their character concept. Honestly, that's how I play too, I want to play a particular concept, and I don't do a lot of min/maxing. However, there is a point where optimisation is desirable because unfortunately, in 3ed, there are plenty of viable character concepts that result in sub-optimal builds and that's not fun to play and not fun for the rest of the party when you're not carrying your weight. Which is how I think this rule is fair. If one person comes to me with a build that I think is overpowered by the rules, yet still legal, I'll often let them play it and see how things pan out. However, to then turn around an penalize a player for WANTING to create a story --something that is far to often overlooked -- I refuse to let an ambiguous rule prevent them from realizing that character as they envision it. I don't think that makes me a bad DM. We really should be past the point where people believe that you have to play a nerfed concept in order to be roleplaying and that if you make a powerful character (or one that balances with the rest of the party's abilities even) then you must just be a powergamer and not interested in roleplay. Generally those more focused on numbers are disinclined to RP. Some are capable of balancing both, but for the most part that is sadly not the case. I have always said that an RP character can't be a powergamed Character, but a powergamed character can be used to roleplay. That is not true in every case, but it is true enough to remain valid. Everything in UA is listed as optional rules, therefore far more questionable than other supplements. Questionable, but available. Just like this rule. Were this rule to have been published in UA, or the PHB you'd be less inclined to shoot it down. Again, you're simply dismissing our example as nothing to do with the story because it goes against what you've been saying. We end up taking a feat that's not needed (wasting one of the most limited resources in the game) as well as taking a level in a class that includes a wasted class feature (the human paragon's bonus caster level). Pointing out these short comings isn't focusing too much on the rules it's saying that I want to make a character that fits my concept and also creates a viable build. I provided a character concept above which has nothing to do with the rules but do explain why I'd want monk as my 1st character level and has nothing to do with powergaming beyond wanting to keep pace with the rest of the party. All I am trying to do is save players from wasting their feats, which as you have just stated, are a limited resource. A slight bend in the rules doesn't seem terrible, V.S. the alternative of a dissatisfied RPer. Also, as I have showed the delay compared to your example wouldn't be impossible with a different build, and would allow your Monk build to fall behind momentarily, to keep pace a level or two later. Not when the "challenge" (not mine btw, I simply added explanations) was to include monk levels early on, and I've provided story reasons for that. I was just trying to keep as much of the original build together as possible, yet truthfully the goal was only to point out that if someone was so inclined, within the rules they could have that feat early. The monk gets improved unarmed strike at first level as a bonus feat, so yes it is a feat they would have had and is a waste because it requires taking a fighter bonus feat that's going to be made redundant as soon as a monk level is taken. Which is why I suggested dumping the monk levels later to continue gaining the other feats requested. Just because you don't have a level or two in monk, doesn't make the concept any less valid. One can of course be an assassin without assassin levels. ;) True enough, personally I've never liked them much but that is a personal choice. I could see if for earth shattering changes that would completely alter the character but I'm not sure I really like it for other reasons, particularly in cases where it means that you can choose options that are great for your current power level but not as good for later levels but then wipe them out with better options when you get to that higher level. Granted, if a player came to me and said they were unhappy with their character because it wasn't measuring up and they'd found a better way to build the concept I'd probably be inclined to allow them to rebuild the character in the new way if it stuck to the original concept. The SUS/INA example is more an example of getting access to something earlier so it's an example of how delaying a feat means you gain something earlier, rebuilding the character could result in them gaining the feats they wanted at a higher level, or to fix that wasted feat. And all I was showing, was that an alternative build could be found to get the same feats at the same level. The possibility in my books means that for another it isn't broken. Also, given the rebuild options, one could still take the feat later, and simply "pretend" they had it earlier. Higher levels often make story driven characters easier to build. My alternative rule assumes you are not starting from a high level. But with delaying a feat I can build a Monk3/Fighter 3 and have the same feats, not have as many multiclass penalties concerns (only 2 classes), have the fast movement from the 3rd monk level, better saves, my monk levels at 1st level (see above), etc. But when looking at the feat, and comparing it to the fact you are already cross classed, and that the average straight fighter by that level is doing 2d6 or 8 damage, then I fail to see how it might be construed as game breaking, or overpowered. Again, I said my ruling isn't mandatory, but was meant to share an alternative opinion with the OP. I was a little harsh earlier on. You can obviously tell there's some frustration because it's impossible to frame a proper debate with someone if they simply change the rules at any point by saying your counter example is "optimising". Honestly, that comes across as pretty close minded too with what you've been saying about "powergamers" and the assumptions you've been making that anything that disagrees with what you're saying is ignoring story. I think that people are getting a little excited over opinions that are really only personal. My issue came from people seemingly attacking a ruling that I have made in a home campaign, that has not only worked, but proved balanced and fair for all. I shared this with the OP, and apparently touched a nerve with some here. I'm not sorry for it, and don't regret trying to get my point across. I'm am not refuting the position you and others are taking as being valid from your POV, I am simply saying from my POV of having used the rule, it has never been an issue. I'd recommend trying it at least once in the future, before discrediting it out of hand. -RW P.S. This rule doesn't occur often, as people generally have more than enough feats to fill slots with. ;)
Legdiwena 11-20-07, 02:01 PM	What is this about the Cleric of Mystra?
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 02:06 PM	What is this about the Cleric of Mystra? When built correctly, it is overpowered. -RW
risner 11-20-07, 02:43 PM	In short, taking away unnecessary monk levels one can still get all they really want. I mean we can get picky, but then that really makes this all moot. The monk level is not unnecessary, it is there for one very important purpose. Without a level of Monk, I can not take Improved Natural Attack and without a level of Monk, I can not make spells or effects target my Unarmed Strikes. Your builds are both less powerful than the builds I can make without delayed feats and far less powerful than the builds I could make with delayed feats. In short, your build fails in every way.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 03:01 PM	The monk level is not unnecessary, it is there for one very important purpose. Without a level of Monk, I can not take Improved Natural Attack and without a level of Monk, I can not make spells or effects target my Unarmed Strikes. Your builds are both less powerful than the builds I can make without delayed feats and far less powerful than the builds I could make with delayed feats. In short, your build fails in every way. Actually, last time I check the ruling on the monks unarmed attack was all or nothing for use with the INA feat. As I stated before it does not state that it is a natural attack, however if you rule it as such, then any PC punching with IUS would be able to take it, just as easily as the monk. It is the same as Supernatural Transformation. They ruled that the eldritch blast was not Innate, but provided by the class, and therefore didn't qualify for the feat. Same situation, in that a class given feature doesn't automatically make one eligible for a monster feat. That aside, from what I can tell, your build is only more powerful in your own head. Regardless, I wasn't competing for power, I was proving a point. One you refuse to acknowledge. A character by the rules could qualify and take SUS at 4th level, and therefore a monk delaying one level to get the feat is not IMO -- please start noting the IMO-- Broken. You have proved nothing, as I evidently have not to you. -RW p.s. I figure you'll quote the Monks unarmed strike text, so to save you the trouble I am referring to the feat.
Frugal 11-20-07, 03:25 PM	Red Wizard, I didn't mean to ignore what you were saying, I either missed where you earlier said that you base it on if another build could achieve the same effect by that level (entirely possible, pitfall of posting from work) or it wasn't clear to me. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that reasoning but at least now I understand how you're balancing things and that you do have a balancing mechanic in place beyond just, "does this immediately appear broken?" which was what I was really concerned with because often broken things aren't immediately obvious.
UCsimplyme 11-20-07, 03:29 PM	STOP! In everyone's angst to prove each other wrong, they missed the ENTIRE point of the original posters question! He asked about taking a RESERVE feat (look at the title of the thread) before you could USE it. Let us look at one reserve feat as an example: Acid Splatter Prereq: Ability to cast 2nd level spells. Benefit: As long as you have an acid spell of 2nd level or higher...etc. Notice: A 3rd level wizard with no acid spells in his spellbook qualifies for this feat because the only requirement is the ability to cast 2nd level spells. So the answer by RAW is YES a caster who qualifies for a reserve feat can take it even if they cannot use it. This is important to note with classes that have spread out advancement like the Bard. This would allow him to grab clap of thunder at 9th even though he may be waiting to get his first sonic spell as a 4th level spell.
Frugal 11-20-07, 03:34 PM	STOP! In everyone's angst to prove each other wrong, they missed the ENTIRE point of the original posters question! He asked about taking a RESERVE feat (look at the title of the thread) before you could USE it. Let us look at one reserve feat as an example: No, he didn't: Can a player/character opt NOT to fill a feat at the level where they gain it, and opt to fill it a level later? For instance, could a character hold off filling the feat they gain at 9th level and fill it at 10th? No mention of reserve feat in his post (this being the main part). And he's talking about reserving a feat, not a reserve feat.
Red_Wizard 11-20-07, 03:41 PM	Red Wizard, I didn't mean to ignore what you were saying, I either missed where you earlier said that you base it on if another build could achieve the same effect by that level (entirely possible, pitfall of posting from work) or it wasn't clear to me. I'm not 100% sure I agree with that reasoning but at least now I understand how you're balancing things and that you do have a balancing mechanic in place beyond just, "does this immediately appear broken?" which was what I was really concerned with because often broken things aren't immediately obvious. It is entirely possible I simply stated one thing, and assumed that the correct assumption would be drawn. The pitfall of debating online vs. in person. ;) -RW
UCsimplyme 11-20-07, 03:43 PM	lol. Now I feel dumb.