Post/Author/DateTime	Post
snb1131 05-24-04, 12:37 AM	How unbalancing would the idea of generic classes be if new 'feats' were introduced? For example, would it be acceptable to put on that list something like, say, the monk's WIS to unarmored AC? Or the swashbuckler's Insightful Strike ability? Are these things that would make the generic classes overpowered? Obviously, some would have to be limited if they were to be introduced; for example, the Insightful Strike may need to have pre-reqs of, say, a DEX of 15+, Weapon Finesse, and/or six ranks in a certain skill (to ensure that it cannot be taken before 3rd level - just like in the core class). I guess my point is this: is it okay to introduce new 'feats' (as in specific core class abilities) as long as they come with enough pre-reqs to keep them available as they would normally be in said core class? Doing something like this might make the generic classes more attractive - for example, if a player wanted to design his character around his outstanding INT score, then he could take the Insightful Strike ability as a feat, all the while staying with levels of Expert to maximize his skill points. Questions? Comments? Thoughts?
Giarc 05-24-04, 01:51 AM	Absolutely. It's all house rules, but I've been thinking of the same thing for my next campaign. Put the proper prerequisites for the feats and make sure they are balanced. Look at the Sneak Attack feat tree for generic characters. It has the base, improved and greater versions. This makes a perfect template for further feats, say unarmed damage (1d6, 1d8, 1d10) or wild shape (1/day, 2/day (large), 3/day (dire)). It's really open to form feats that correspond to the world the DM is running. PrC abilities can be added, so the character can focus their abilities in the direction they wish to follow.