Feats at every level [Archive] - Wizards Community

Feats at every level [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
DevaNinja
09-12-04, 11:16 PM This is a long post so bear with me! With all of the d20 books from numerous publishers, not to mention all of the homemade ones there are now thousands of feats available (If your DM gives you that option). With so much variance, I was thinking of allowing characters to get a feat at every level instead of every 3. Now this serves several purposes. It gives characters something at each level that some classes would not normally get, opens a wider path for said characters, and may improve roleplaying to acquire?

Not considering Epic and just the core 20 levels, all characters get just seven feats. Not a lot huh? So said Paladin, Cleric and Sorcerer just have seven things to chose. Bummer for them. Lets use the Cleric first as an exmple. Lot of nifty feats in Defenders of the Faith that use Turn Undead attempts for the day. Theres a catch though. Firstly they usually last just 1 round,. Secondly all have the prereq of Extra Turning ( Feat gone), as well as one or more of the other "Divine" feats. Just to get one that the cleric really wants, he's probably gonna have to use half of his feats just for the prereqs! And Dodge....is a +1 to your AC against 1 opponent really worth a feat?!

Now for the wizard. He gets his 7 plus scribe scroll and 4 other Metamagic and item creation feats. Now going on the fact that 20th level is the cap, said Wizard couldn't get half of each type of feat and others such as combat casting, spell focus, etc.. and be complete. Grand Wizard indeed! :D

Now some of you may have a counter retort. Like the fighter having a total of 31 feats with this rule. In the PHB combat expertise has a cap of 5. Perhaps at higher levels more than 5 is needed? Well then you have to get a redundant feat in the complete warrior...Improved combat expertise that lets you use up to your bab. 2 feats used for basically the same thing. sucks don't it?

However several things I probably would consider. 1st- At least half of the feats you chose must in some way be related to your class. 2nd- For classes that get bonus feats (such as fighters and wizards), perhaps halve the rate at which they get their bonus feats (Fighters every 4 levels, wizards every 10)? 3rd- Monsters and NPC's get this benefit as well. One feat per hit die. As mentioned this has not yet been implemented but is still a Work in Progress, so please send me all of your comments and suggestions! :)
Razorblade Smile
09-13-04, 12:12 AM If I were considering such a house rule, I would probably go in the exact opposite direction. I would only allow General Feats (ie, not ones normally limited to a specific class, like Fighter, Divine, or Metamagic feats) to be taken except, maybe, at every 3rd or 5th level. In order to gain access to those feats (which tend to be more potent), you have to be a member of the class in question and have some means to gain them via that class. Otherwise you risk completely castrating the Fighter class and, if you're using them, all three of the Generic classes from UA.

There are a ton of general feats out there, and several of them are somewhat class specific (such as Spell Thematics)... so it's not exactly shoehorning or limiting a player's options.
Degobah
09-13-04, 01:54 AM You can almost do it with regular UA rules if you make all of your PCs Gestalt with warrior. That's an extra feat every 2 levels...
I'd toyed with the idea of giving bonus feats equal to Wis bonus at 1st level (sort of to mirror the bonus skill points for Int) but it seemed overpowered. Any extra feat system disadvantages fighters (they no longer have a point) and humans (ditto).
edsonaoki
09-13-04, 10:07 AM Originally Posted by DevaNinja

However several things I probably would consider. 1st- At least half of the feats you chose must in some way be related to your class. 2nd- For classes that get bonus feats (such as fighters and wizards), perhaps halve the rate at which they get their bonus feats (Fighters every 4 levels, wizards every 10)?

Are you going to kill the Fighter? I was thinking on the opposite; by giving dozens of bonus feats to all classes, you mitigate the advantage of the fighter over other characters.

Perhaps replacing the bonus feats for increases on ability scores. Like: +1 to any physical stat for Fighter, +1 to Int for wizard, +(i don´t know what) for other classes as you seem appropriate.

Oh, and +2 to any stat for humans.
DevaNinja
09-13-04, 11:31 AM I kind of like your idea Razorblade Smile. Just allow General feats at every level and keep the class specific ones at every 3rd. That would probably keep powermaxing down.

As for your response edsonaoki, I already house rule that humans get to add +2 to any stat of their choice at character creation. I've also done some "Regional" human subraces that get extra bonuses and penalties based on region, kingdom, etc.. that they hail from. I always thought even with the extra feat and skill points, humans still had no incentive to be played. My intention was to not kill the fighter, but it may be so? With this rule he'd be getting 13 more feats (Actually all classes would), and if I go with Razorblade Smile's advice, at least 8 of those bonus 13 would have to be general feats, so he could on;y get 5 more bonus "Fighter" feats, and that's at 20th level. I don't particularly like the idea of a bonus stat point instead of a feat???

Degobah, I'm trying to stay away from gestalts as much as possible. Going with your WIS bonus feats at 1st level, I have before given all players 1 extra Feat at 1st level that MUST be spent on either a Racial or Regional feat appropriate to the character.

Keep the ideas coming!
edsonaoki
09-13-04, 01:54 PM DevaNinja, a character´s class power is measured proportionally, and not absolutely.

For instance, assume I give extra +10 hp/level and extra +1 BAB/level to all character levels. Technically, this wouldn't be "unbalanced", because I´m giving the same benefit to all. However, I will end up with wizards and sorcerers having almost the same hit points and attack bonus as barbarians and fighters. In the other hand, barbarians and fighters would still not have a small portion of the wizards and sorcerers´ magical power.

The same thing happens to fighters. A fighter's advantages over other classes is his amount of feats and flexibility to choose them. Particullary, the ability to quickly build feat chains and have distinct advantages on combat.

If you give all classes this abilities, you will end up with every barbarian, paladin and ranger becoming excelent fighters, and fighters still won´t be good barbarians, paladins and rangers.
keyunp
09-13-04, 05:55 PM The Everquest RPG had an idea that I liked and expanded on.
Training points. You do not get the standard feats or stat increase.
For example: ( Think that this was what I first tried)
You get 7 training points per level starting at level 1.
To gain a feat costs 8 points.
To gain a stat increase costs 12 points.

Using those numbers you would have the normal 5 stat increases and 7 feats by level 20 with 16 extra points

You can change the numbers however you want to get balance that you feel is right.

Right now I'm using a classless style.
20 Training points per level including level 1.

Feat =15 points
+1 Fort save =8 points
+1 Ref save =8 points
+1 Will save =8 points
+2 skill points =5 points
+1 Class Skill =2 points
Stat Increase (<11) =10 points
Stat Increase (11=>) =20 points
Stat Increase (19=>) =25 points

There can be balance issues, but I'm lucky that way. Of my 3 players 1 works with me for balance issues, and the the 2 of us usually make the characters for the other 2 (our wives :D )
MaverickWolf
09-14-04, 01:17 PM If you give all classes this abilities, you will end up with every barbarian, paladin and ranger becoming excelent fighters, and fighters still won´t be good barbarians, paladins and rangers.

Which is a problem without this house rule, although that's another argument altogether. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers are already excellent fighters. This system wouldn't nerf the fighter any more than it already does. Especially since most people would take feats related to their classes anyway, for things like improved rages, favored enemies, wild shape advantages, things like that. It'd balance itself out. Heck, it'd save the fighter's butt, because he could finally get enough feat trees together that synergize, or specialize in multiple weapons.
edsonaoki
09-15-04, 09:36 AM Originally Posted by MaverickWolf

Which is a problem without this house rule, although that's another argument altogether. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers are already excellent fighters. This system wouldn't nerf the fighter any more than it already does. Especially since most people would take feats related to their classes anyway, for things like improved rages, favored enemies, wild shape advantages, things like that. It'd balance itself out. Heck, it'd save the fighter's butt, because he could finally get enough feat trees together that synergize, or specialize in multiple weapons.

They are excelent frontline warriors, not excelent fighters. You can't create a tactical soldier as good as a fighter using barbarians, paladin or rangers (such as a spiked chain build, mobile build or archer build).

Barbarians, paladins and rangers may take take improved rages, favored enemies, but they will certainly take many fighter feats too and use feat chains that are supposed to be used for a fighter.

When you already has many feats, more feats are useful, but they just don't add much. Feats are situational; you probably won't to use mage slayer or powerful charge every round. Specializing with multiple weapons? Well, does anyone actually want that? The fighter doesn't need to be versatile, he needs to be good on what he does and let the rest for the other party members.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of feats. Feats are made to customize your character, and that's why they release so many new feats. Your character is not supposed to have all the feats; offering a huge variety of feats, but allowing a chaarcter to pick only a handful of them, ensures that no fighter or no wizard in the world is identical.
MaverickWolf
09-15-04, 10:57 AM They are excelent frontline warriors, not excelent fighters. You can't create a tactical soldier as good as a fighter using barbarians, paladin or rangers (such as a spiked chain build, mobile build or archer build).

Barbarians, paladins and rangers may take take improved rages, favored enemies, but they will certainly take many fighter feats too and use feat chains that are supposed to be used for a fighter.

When you already has many feats, more feats are useful, but they just don't add much. Feats are situational; you probably won't to use mage slayer or powerful charge every round. Specializing with multiple weapons? Well, does anyone actually want that? The fighter doesn't need to be versatile, he needs to be good on what he does and let the rest for the other party members.

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of feats. Feats are made to customize your character, and that's why they release so many new feats. Your character is not supposed to have all the feats; offering a huge variety of feats, but allowing a chaarcter to pick only a handful of them, ensures that no fighter or no wizard in the world is identical.

Actually, a ranger makes an excellent tactical fighter, as does a mounted paladin. I'll agree that barbarians are frontliners, but they frontline better than a fighter who's specializing in frontling, and that's the problem.

I understand the concept of feats just fine. But with the number of feats now available, especially since most campaigns use homebrewed feats of some sort on top of those from official products, a feat at every level still doesn't mean everyone's going to have the same thing. Hell, I could build 6 different characters of the exact same class that would all be viable choices and they'd all be completely different (except maybe wizards, who are rather cookie-cuttered anyway).
RealMad
09-16-04, 12:22 PM The problem with the original proposition, to me, seems simply that the players want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a powerful cleric/rogue/whatever, on top of having the ability to complete long feat chains.

I shudder to think what happens when you give a mage a feat per level. Not only will they link up with all the metamagic buffs, they'll also complete the Item Creation set. With a little careful selection, they'll also get the nice defensive feats.

Then with something like the ranger, not only will he get Archery combat style, he can pick up the TWF combat style, all while spring attacking, shot on the run, etc.

Sure, Razorblade's idea is the fairest thing but admit it, no one wants to take those skill point boosting feats anyway. The reason why this feat per level idea is coming up is because the players want to be able to select more of the feats that are "money".

For me, you should call a spade a spade. This house rule is not about picking up General feats, this is about making multiple feat chains for non-fighter classes possible. Since that's the goal (and I'm a believer that any power level is fine so long as the opponents get the same), the simplest mechanic to get this is to go gestalt. Surely that will satisfy the craving to get the sick chains and builds.
DevaNinja
09-16-04, 01:09 PM Remember what I posted. If I allow this for the players, then I also allow it for the NPC's. Remember Non Epic 20th is the cap...the cream of the crop. Yes said Wizard would have allItem Creation and Metamagic feats in the PHB, but there are also dozens more in other supplements. Using the PHB and this as an example, after getting all the above feats the wizard would have 8 feats left to select. Combat Casting, Magical Aptitude, Skill focus (Spellcraft), Spell penetration, Greater spell penetration, Skill focus (Knowledge Arcana), Spell focus (Evocation), and Greater Spell focus (Evocation). The wizard is done. He still doesn't have every metamagic feat or item creation feat? Still room for versatility right? Don't forget that Great Red Wyrm is gonna have about 20 extra feats as well don't you think that balances him out? if not then would it be outrageous to allow a feat at every odd level instead of every three then. Only a three feat difference in the long run, and the fighter (aka "Feat Boy") will end up with one at every level?
RealMad
09-16-04, 02:20 PM Remember what I posted. If I allow this for the players, then I also allow it for the NPC's. Remember Non Epic 20th is the cap...the cream of the crop. Yes said Wizard would have allItem Creation and Metamagic feats in the PHB, but there are also dozens more in other supplements. Using the PHB and this as an example, after getting all the above feats the wizard would have 8 feats left to select. Combat Casting, Magical Aptitude, Skill focus (Spellcraft), Spell penetration, Greater spell penetration, Skill focus (Knowledge Arcana), Spell focus (Evocation), and Greater Spell focus (Evocation). The wizard is done. He still doesn't have every metamagic feat or item creation feat? Still room for versatility right? Don't forget that Great Red Wyrm is gonna have about 20 extra feats as well don't you think that balances him out? if not then would it be outrageous to allow a feat at every odd level instead of every three then. Only a three feat difference in the long run, and the fighter (aka "Feat Boy") will end up with one at every level?

Well, I'm not saying it's not balanced. By the very fact that NPCs get the same thing, that makes it balanced. Heck, Gestalt is largely balanced so long as opponents are Gestalt too (and CR levels are adjusted accordingly).

My observation really is: why go through this system which, even with balance in place, basically hamstrings Fighters? I suppose if you have no fighters, and don't fight any fighters, this will be fine.

Anyway, it's your house rule. I think you're just making it easy for min/max monsters. Problem with this is it eventually becomes a DM nightmare to keep track of all the combos everyone has.

To me, it's just too many feats. There will be no challenge to attaining a combo. It won't even be a challenge for a mage to gain the spiked chain combo, for instance.
JohnSnow
09-16-04, 02:39 PM Some people have actually suggested boosting the number of feats available to characters in games that are lower on the "magic scale." In other words, if you limit players' access to magic, extra feats can "fill in the gap," to an extent.

Personally, I like games that stress character power over the power of their gear. I don't want my PC to be powerful because he's got a Batman-utility-belt full to the brim with this or that magical contraption. I want him to be powerful because, well, he is. And while that's true of spellcasters, most of the other classes lag horribly by comparison.

Think about it. What's the combat capability of a 19th level party with NO gear? Conversely, what happens to the capabilities of a 1st level party if they have bucketloads of treasure?

When I started playing D&D, characters with the 3e "standard" level of equipment (at Levels 10+) were confined to games we derisively called "Monty Haul" campaigns.

Back on topic, I think you can give the PCs more feats, but it should not just be "on top of" everything else. It should be an alternative way of providing character power. Something used in lower-magic games (I hear Andy Collins is doing something like this in his current homebrew).

My two coppers.
darczero
09-29-04, 04:28 AM Can I play in your game?
stone_dog
09-30-04, 05:27 AM I hear ya John. I am planning on secretly gestalting classes with the Expert generic class and just not telling anybody why they have extra feats on their character sheets that just happen to fit into their character concepts.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DevaNinja 09-12-04, 11:16 PM	This is a long post so bear with me! With all of the d20 books from numerous publishers, not to mention all of the homemade ones there are now thousands of feats available (If your DM gives you that option). With so much variance, I was thinking of allowing characters to get a feat at every level instead of every 3. Now this serves several purposes. It gives characters something at each level that some classes would not normally get, opens a wider path for said characters, and may improve roleplaying to acquire? Not considering Epic and just the core 20 levels, all characters get just seven feats. Not a lot huh? So said Paladin, Cleric and Sorcerer just have seven things to chose. Bummer for them. Lets use the Cleric first as an exmple. Lot of nifty feats in Defenders of the Faith that use Turn Undead attempts for the day. Theres a catch though. Firstly they usually last just 1 round,. Secondly all have the prereq of Extra Turning ( Feat gone), as well as one or more of the other "Divine" feats. Just to get one that the cleric really wants, he's probably gonna have to use half of his feats just for the prereqs! And Dodge....is a +1 to your AC against 1 opponent really worth a feat?! Now for the wizard. He gets his 7 plus scribe scroll and 4 other Metamagic and item creation feats. Now going on the fact that 20th level is the cap, said Wizard couldn't get half of each type of feat and others such as combat casting, spell focus, etc.. and be complete. Grand Wizard indeed! :D Now some of you may have a counter retort. Like the fighter having a total of 31 feats with this rule. In the PHB combat expertise has a cap of 5. Perhaps at higher levels more than 5 is needed? Well then you have to get a redundant feat in the complete warrior...Improved combat expertise that lets you use up to your bab. 2 feats used for basically the same thing. sucks don't it? However several things I probably would consider. 1st- At least half of the feats you chose must in some way be related to your class. 2nd- For classes that get bonus feats (such as fighters and wizards), perhaps halve the rate at which they get their bonus feats (Fighters every 4 levels, wizards every 10)? 3rd- Monsters and NPC's get this benefit as well. One feat per hit die. As mentioned this has not yet been implemented but is still a Work in Progress, so please send me all of your comments and suggestions! :)
Razorblade Smile 09-13-04, 12:12 AM	If I were considering such a house rule, I would probably go in the exact opposite direction. I would only allow General Feats (ie, not ones normally limited to a specific class, like Fighter, Divine, or Metamagic feats) to be taken except, maybe, at every 3rd or 5th level. In order to gain access to those feats (which tend to be more potent), you have to be a member of the class in question and have some means to gain them via that class. Otherwise you risk completely castrating the Fighter class and, if you're using them, all three of the Generic classes from UA. There are a ton of general feats out there, and several of them are somewhat class specific (such as Spell Thematics)... so it's not exactly shoehorning or limiting a player's options.
Degobah 09-13-04, 01:54 AM	You can almost do it with regular UA rules if you make all of your PCs Gestalt with warrior. That's an extra feat every 2 levels... I'd toyed with the idea of giving bonus feats equal to Wis bonus at 1st level (sort of to mirror the bonus skill points for Int) but it seemed overpowered. Any extra feat system disadvantages fighters (they no longer have a point) and humans (ditto).
edsonaoki 09-13-04, 10:07 AM	Originally Posted by DevaNinja However several things I probably would consider. 1st- At least half of the feats you chose must in some way be related to your class. 2nd- For classes that get bonus feats (such as fighters and wizards), perhaps halve the rate at which they get their bonus feats (Fighters every 4 levels, wizards every 10)? Are you going to kill the Fighter? I was thinking on the opposite; by giving dozens of bonus feats to all classes, you mitigate the advantage of the fighter over other characters. Perhaps replacing the bonus feats for increases on ability scores. Like: +1 to any physical stat for Fighter, +1 to Int for wizard, +(i don´t know what) for other classes as you seem appropriate. Oh, and +2 to any stat for humans.
DevaNinja 09-13-04, 11:31 AM	I kind of like your idea Razorblade Smile. Just allow General feats at every level and keep the class specific ones at every 3rd. That would probably keep powermaxing down. As for your response edsonaoki, I already house rule that humans get to add +2 to any stat of their choice at character creation. I've also done some "Regional" human subraces that get extra bonuses and penalties based on region, kingdom, etc.. that they hail from. I always thought even with the extra feat and skill points, humans still had no incentive to be played. My intention was to not kill the fighter, but it may be so? With this rule he'd be getting 13 more feats (Actually all classes would), and if I go with Razorblade Smile's advice, at least 8 of those bonus 13 would have to be general feats, so he could on;y get 5 more bonus "Fighter" feats, and that's at 20th level. I don't particularly like the idea of a bonus stat point instead of a feat??? Degobah, I'm trying to stay away from gestalts as much as possible. Going with your WIS bonus feats at 1st level, I have before given all players 1 extra Feat at 1st level that MUST be spent on either a Racial or Regional feat appropriate to the character. Keep the ideas coming!
edsonaoki 09-13-04, 01:54 PM	DevaNinja, a character´s class power is measured proportionally, and not absolutely. For instance, assume I give extra +10 hp/level and extra +1 BAB/level to all character levels. Technically, this wouldn't be "unbalanced", because I´m giving the same benefit to all. However, I will end up with wizards and sorcerers having almost the same hit points and attack bonus as barbarians and fighters. In the other hand, barbarians and fighters would still not have a small portion of the wizards and sorcerers´ magical power. The same thing happens to fighters. A fighter's advantages over other classes is his amount of feats and flexibility to choose them. Particullary, the ability to quickly build feat chains and have distinct advantages on combat. If you give all classes this abilities, you will end up with every barbarian, paladin and ranger becoming excelent fighters, and fighters still won´t be good barbarians, paladins and rangers.
keyunp 09-13-04, 05:55 PM	The Everquest RPG had an idea that I liked and expanded on. Training points. You do not get the standard feats or stat increase. For example: ( Think that this was what I first tried) You get 7 training points per level starting at level 1. To gain a feat costs 8 points. To gain a stat increase costs 12 points. Using those numbers you would have the normal 5 stat increases and 7 feats by level 20 with 16 extra points You can change the numbers however you want to get balance that you feel is right. Right now I'm using a classless style. 20 Training points per level including level 1. Feat =15 points +1 Fort save =8 points +1 Ref save =8 points +1 Will save =8 points +2 skill points =5 points +1 Class Skill =2 points Stat Increase (<11) =10 points Stat Increase (11=>) =20 points Stat Increase (19=>) =25 points There can be balance issues, but I'm lucky that way. Of my 3 players 1 works with me for balance issues, and the the 2 of us usually make the characters for the other 2 (our wives :D )
MaverickWolf 09-14-04, 01:17 PM	If you give all classes this abilities, you will end up with every barbarian, paladin and ranger becoming excelent fighters, and fighters still won´t be good barbarians, paladins and rangers. Which is a problem without this house rule, although that's another argument altogether. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers are already excellent fighters. This system wouldn't nerf the fighter any more than it already does. Especially since most people would take feats related to their classes anyway, for things like improved rages, favored enemies, wild shape advantages, things like that. It'd balance itself out. Heck, it'd save the fighter's butt, because he could finally get enough feat trees together that synergize, or specialize in multiple weapons.
edsonaoki 09-15-04, 09:36 AM	Originally Posted by MaverickWolf Which is a problem without this house rule, although that's another argument altogether. Barbarians, paladins, and rangers are already excellent fighters. This system wouldn't nerf the fighter any more than it already does. Especially since most people would take feats related to their classes anyway, for things like improved rages, favored enemies, wild shape advantages, things like that. It'd balance itself out. Heck, it'd save the fighter's butt, because he could finally get enough feat trees together that synergize, or specialize in multiple weapons. They are excelent frontline warriors, not excelent fighters. You can't create a tactical soldier as good as a fighter using barbarians, paladin or rangers (such as a spiked chain build, mobile build or archer build). Barbarians, paladins and rangers may take take improved rages, favored enemies, but they will certainly take many fighter feats too and use feat chains that are supposed to be used for a fighter. When you already has many feats, more feats are useful, but they just don't add much. Feats are situational; you probably won't to use mage slayer or powerful charge every round. Specializing with multiple weapons? Well, does anyone actually want that? The fighter doesn't need to be versatile, he needs to be good on what he does and let the rest for the other party members. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of feats. Feats are made to customize your character, and that's why they release so many new feats. Your character is not supposed to have all the feats; offering a huge variety of feats, but allowing a chaarcter to pick only a handful of them, ensures that no fighter or no wizard in the world is identical.
MaverickWolf 09-15-04, 10:57 AM	They are excelent frontline warriors, not excelent fighters. You can't create a tactical soldier as good as a fighter using barbarians, paladin or rangers (such as a spiked chain build, mobile build or archer build). Barbarians, paladins and rangers may take take improved rages, favored enemies, but they will certainly take many fighter feats too and use feat chains that are supposed to be used for a fighter. When you already has many feats, more feats are useful, but they just don't add much. Feats are situational; you probably won't to use mage slayer or powerful charge every round. Specializing with multiple weapons? Well, does anyone actually want that? The fighter doesn't need to be versatile, he needs to be good on what he does and let the rest for the other party members. I think you are misunderstanding the concept of feats. Feats are made to customize your character, and that's why they release so many new feats. Your character is not supposed to have all the feats; offering a huge variety of feats, but allowing a chaarcter to pick only a handful of them, ensures that no fighter or no wizard in the world is identical. Actually, a ranger makes an excellent tactical fighter, as does a mounted paladin. I'll agree that barbarians are frontliners, but they frontline better than a fighter who's specializing in frontling, and that's the problem. I understand the concept of feats just fine. But with the number of feats now available, especially since most campaigns use homebrewed feats of some sort on top of those from official products, a feat at every level still doesn't mean everyone's going to have the same thing. Hell, I could build 6 different characters of the exact same class that would all be viable choices and they'd all be completely different (except maybe wizards, who are rather cookie-cuttered anyway).
RealMad 09-16-04, 12:22 PM	The problem with the original proposition, to me, seems simply that the players want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a powerful cleric/rogue/whatever, on top of having the ability to complete long feat chains. I shudder to think what happens when you give a mage a feat per level. Not only will they link up with all the metamagic buffs, they'll also complete the Item Creation set. With a little careful selection, they'll also get the nice defensive feats. Then with something like the ranger, not only will he get Archery combat style, he can pick up the TWF combat style, all while spring attacking, shot on the run, etc. Sure, Razorblade's idea is the fairest thing but admit it, no one wants to take those skill point boosting feats anyway. The reason why this feat per level idea is coming up is because the players want to be able to select more of the feats that are "money". For me, you should call a spade a spade. This house rule is not about picking up General feats, this is about making multiple feat chains for non-fighter classes possible. Since that's the goal (and I'm a believer that any power level is fine so long as the opponents get the same), the simplest mechanic to get this is to go gestalt. Surely that will satisfy the craving to get the sick chains and builds.
DevaNinja 09-16-04, 01:09 PM	Remember what I posted. If I allow this for the players, then I also allow it for the NPC's. Remember Non Epic 20th is the cap...the cream of the crop. Yes said Wizard would have allItem Creation and Metamagic feats in the PHB, but there are also dozens more in other supplements. Using the PHB and this as an example, after getting all the above feats the wizard would have 8 feats left to select. Combat Casting, Magical Aptitude, Skill focus (Spellcraft), Spell penetration, Greater spell penetration, Skill focus (Knowledge Arcana), Spell focus (Evocation), and Greater Spell focus (Evocation). The wizard is done. He still doesn't have every metamagic feat or item creation feat? Still room for versatility right? Don't forget that Great Red Wyrm is gonna have about 20 extra feats as well don't you think that balances him out? if not then would it be outrageous to allow a feat at every odd level instead of every three then. Only a three feat difference in the long run, and the fighter (aka "Feat Boy") will end up with one at every level?
RealMad 09-16-04, 02:20 PM	Remember what I posted. If I allow this for the players, then I also allow it for the NPC's. Remember Non Epic 20th is the cap...the cream of the crop. Yes said Wizard would have allItem Creation and Metamagic feats in the PHB, but there are also dozens more in other supplements. Using the PHB and this as an example, after getting all the above feats the wizard would have 8 feats left to select. Combat Casting, Magical Aptitude, Skill focus (Spellcraft), Spell penetration, Greater spell penetration, Skill focus (Knowledge Arcana), Spell focus (Evocation), and Greater Spell focus (Evocation). The wizard is done. He still doesn't have every metamagic feat or item creation feat? Still room for versatility right? Don't forget that Great Red Wyrm is gonna have about 20 extra feats as well don't you think that balances him out? if not then would it be outrageous to allow a feat at every odd level instead of every three then. Only a three feat difference in the long run, and the fighter (aka "Feat Boy") will end up with one at every level? Well, I'm not saying it's not balanced. By the very fact that NPCs get the same thing, that makes it balanced. Heck, Gestalt is largely balanced so long as opponents are Gestalt too (and CR levels are adjusted accordingly). My observation really is: why go through this system which, even with balance in place, basically hamstrings Fighters? I suppose if you have no fighters, and don't fight any fighters, this will be fine. Anyway, it's your house rule. I think you're just making it easy for min/max monsters. Problem with this is it eventually becomes a DM nightmare to keep track of all the combos everyone has. To me, it's just too many feats. There will be no challenge to attaining a combo. It won't even be a challenge for a mage to gain the spiked chain combo, for instance.
JohnSnow 09-16-04, 02:39 PM	Some people have actually suggested boosting the number of feats available to characters in games that are lower on the "magic scale." In other words, if you limit players' access to magic, extra feats can "fill in the gap," to an extent. Personally, I like games that stress character power over the power of their gear. I don't want my PC to be powerful because he's got a Batman-utility-belt full to the brim with this or that magical contraption. I want him to be powerful because, well, he is. And while that's true of spellcasters, most of the other classes lag horribly by comparison. Think about it. What's the combat capability of a 19th level party with NO gear? Conversely, what happens to the capabilities of a 1st level party if they have bucketloads of treasure? When I started playing D&D, characters with the 3e "standard" level of equipment (at Levels 10+) were confined to games we derisively called "Monty Haul" campaigns. Back on topic, I think you can give the PCs more feats, but it should not just be "on top of" everything else. It should be an alternative way of providing character power. Something used in lower-magic games (I hear Andy Collins is doing something like this in his current homebrew). My two coppers.
darczero 09-29-04, 04:28 AM	Can I play in your game?
stone_dog 09-30-04, 05:27 AM	I hear ya John. I am planning on secretly gestalting classes with the Expert generic class and just not telling anybody why they have extra feats on their character sheets that just happen to fit into their character concepts.