Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Valoy_Muniz 04-03-06, 08:38 AM	How much of a impact would it be to alow pc to buy a feat they do not quilify for and just not letting them use it till they do. The rouge in the group want to take wepon fitness but as you all know it needs a +1 to base attack bounes that they do not get to level 2. I am think I will alowe this (and by doing so alowe it for all feats) just reminding him he can not use the feat till he advances. Does anyone know of any major headacks I may not have noticed.
RaspK FOG 04-03-06, 08:55 AM	Feats represent the fact that you can currently do something that you could not do in the past with their benefits; should a character be allowed to take a feat he cannot benefit from under normal circumstances breaks the game in very bad ways, because some condition may allow one to use a feat much earlier (such as a wizard using a feat only a full BAB class of his level would normally be able to use because he is able to cast Tenser's Transformation, for example), while also making the character weaker in general because of being a feat short. The game was built around the concept of making clever choices with your feats and skill points.
Bob Loblaw 04-03-06, 09:49 AM	If you do this, you will be taking some of the glory away from other classes. The classes that get bonus feats tend to qualify for feats sooner and more often. By giving everyone this ability, even if it's only with a few feats, you are taking away part of what makes those classes special. Also, the reason the feats have prerequisites is for balance. If you start taking that away, you will see a shift in power for your games. A rogue that has weapon finesse at level 2 is going to be more powerful. By allowing PCs to take feats early, you will also grant them access to other feats and prestige classes earlier than intended. This will increase the power that PCs have and/or take some of the glory from other classes as well. If you are fine with those things happening, then go for it. Personally, I think that the players need to be patient or design their characters differently. For example, if the rogue wants weapon finesse at level 2, then he should take fighter at 2nd level. This will slow his rogue progress somewhat, but he will be more focused on combat like he wanted. That's what this game is all about: choices.
Valoy_Muniz 04-03-06, 01:50 PM	Thanks for the Imput.
mbeach90266 04-04-06, 11:32 AM	I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the only missing pre-req is level, then you can say they were trained in the feat, but have to practice and will get no benefits until they meet the level requirement and finally "get it". In this way there will be no issues with actually using a feat too early, or qualifying for something else too early. my 2cp
VrecknidjX 04-04-06, 03:21 PM	If a feat has a prerequisite of +1 BAB, then allowing a character to take it at first level, even though that character only has a +0 BAB isn't fair. Every class gains a +1 to its BAB at second level, so, anyone taking such a feat gets to utilize the feat at second level (unless that character multiclasses in another +0 BAB class), a full level before feat-acquisition normally becomes possible. A way out of this is to tell a player who wants to play a rogue with Weapon Finesse to take his second level in fighter and use the bonus feat to take Weapon Finesse. Dave
StruckingFuggle 04-04-06, 03:21 PM	If you do this, you will be taking some of the glory away from other classes. The classes that get bonus feats tend to qualify for feats sooner and more often. By giving everyone this ability, even if it's only with a few feats, you are taking away part of what makes those classes special. Also, the reason the feats have prerequisites is for balance. If you start taking that away, you will see a shift in power for your games. A rogue that has weapon finesse at level 2 is going to be more powerful. How is that, when they still can't *use* the feat until they'd otherwise be able to get it?
Bob Loblaw 04-05-06, 01:41 AM	Many feats and prestige classes are designed for specific classes to qualify for them at certain levels. If someone is able to take all the feats early, it is entirely possible that he can qualify up to 3 levels earlier. The classes that get bonus feats (fighter for one) tend to have fewer class features. One of their unwritten benefits is that they tend to find it easier to qualify for special things like more feats or prestige classes. By allowing other classes to take feats early, you are taking some of the benefit away from the other classes. The game is about choices. If you want something at a time when your character shouldn't qualify, then you need to figure out if you can pull it off within the rules. Anyone can houserule, but that doesn't really take any skill on the players' or DM's part. As was mentioned, if you want a feat like Weapon Finesse at 2nd level as a rogue, then you should instead take your next level as a fighter or, even better, swashbuckler. You are becoming more of a combatant earlier than your peers. This should be reflected in your choices. Taking swashbuckler will give you d10 hit points, 4+Int skill points, a decent selection of skills, +2 Fortitude, and the Weapon Finesse that was desired, all without changing the actual character concept.
allenchan 04-05-06, 04:14 AM	All Epic feats, anyone? Hell no.
kelvinaw273 04-08-06, 07:24 AM	I actually don't see a problem with this. If anything it can penalise the character by making them wait for feats, although they gain by optimising their final build. OK, an example might be my Kalashtar Monk. I can't get strength 13 until 8th level, but I want to take Psionic Fist as soon as possible for the follow-up feats. Say I take it at 6th level; I then cannot use it until 8th level when I boost my strength to 13. At 9th I can then take Greater psionic fist or unavaoidable attack as the follow-up feats that I would not otherwise get until 12th level if I had to wait. It is really a tradeoff, less power now against more later.
EvilSqueegee 04-08-06, 10:15 AM	I actually don't see a problem with this. If anything it can penalise the character by making them wait for feats, although they gain by optimising their final build. OK, an example might be my Kalashtar Monk. I can't get strength 13 until 8th level, but I want to take Psionic Fist as soon as possible for the follow-up feats. Say I take it at 6th level; I then cannot use it until 8th level when I boost my strength to 13. At 9th I can then take Greater psionic fist or unavaoidable attack as the follow-up feats that I would not otherwise get until 12th level if I had to wait. It is really a tradeoff, less power now against more later. And more power later is still unbalancing, in my opinion. Here's why. A fighter is known for his ability to amass insanely large collections of feats. That's why people take the Fighter class, a lot of the time: They want to use a bunch of feats in combination that they need the fighter's bonus feats to attain. A fighter qualifies for particular feats like Whirlwind Attack earlier than other people do, because he can fufill the prerequisite feats sooner than other classes can. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack. A fighter gets that sooner than a rogue does. In turn, he doesn't get sneak attack, he doesn't get a lot of skills, and he has no class features other than bonus feats. A rogue gets sneak attack, lots of skill points, a long list of class skills, evasion, and a bunch of other abilities. But it only gets a few feats and therefore unlocking the final, cool and powerful feats from a chain of feats takes more time. Giving the Rogue the ability to get Whirlwind Attack sooner than a fighter begins to make the fighter less desirable, because the advantage it has lessens in comparison to the growth of it's weakness when you compare it to other classes. The fighter class is suddenly less valuable as a combat character. And why on earth would you lessen a fighter's value in, of all things, a fight? Dungeons and Dragons is about options. You build your character optimised to your liking within the rules. That's half the fun of the game: Making good choices. If you want that feat earlier, do what everyone else is saying and take a level or two of Fighter. Disregarding feat prerequisites is a bad, bad idea because it seriously messes around with game balance issues in ways that most people don't have the knowledge to compensate for. Even if you can't use it untill you meet the prerequisites, taking feats early allows for unlocking later, cooller, powerful feats that otherwise would not be available to your character at those levels, like you said. the D&D rules within the core books are carefully balanced by the research and development teams that made the game to begin with - for all levels. A wizard of 10th level is no more valuable in a generic fight than a fighter of 10th level. A character's level is descriptive of it's power in a fight, generally. If that wizard could take feats earlier than he is supposed to, suddenly a 14th level wizard is more valuable than a 14th level fighter in a generic fight. Unless the fighter gets some sort of compensatory ability, why on earth would you want to be a fighter after that has been said? Personally, I'd play the wizard because they're more useful that way. Prerequisites are there for a reason. You have to meet those prerequisites to take the feats for a reason. Without knowing what those reasons are, you shouldn't change the rule because you can't properly re-balance your game.
DrMorganes 04-08-06, 10:33 AM	Options aside, how can one learn to run before one learns to walk? If your BAB is +0, you haven't learned enough about combat to take a feat which requires a +1 BAB as a prerequisite. If your STR isn't 13, there is no way you can properly master the techniques of a Power Attack or Psionic Fist. If you can't master Power Attack or Psionic Fist, you can't take other feats which have those prerequisites.
Bob Loblaw 04-08-06, 10:43 AM	I actually don't see a problem with this. If anything it can penalise the character by making them wait for feats, although they gain by optimising their final build. OK, an example might be my Kalashtar Monk. I can't get strength 13 until 8th level, but I want to take Psionic Fist as soon as possible for the follow-up feats. Say I take it at 6th level; I then cannot use it until 8th level when I boost my strength to 13. At 9th I can then take Greater psionic fist or unavaoidable attack as the follow-up feats that I would not otherwise get until 12th level if I had to wait. It is really a tradeoff, less power now against more later. It's actually a bonus rather than a penalty. Take a look at the Weapon Focus feat. It has Prerequiste of +1 BAB. If the rogue takes it at level 1, when he doesn't qualify, he has wasted a feat slot. Not that big of a deal considering he could have taken another feat that would have been a waste as well with no real impact (Skill Focus: Profession [Sailor]). Now, at 2nd level he gets to use Weapon Finesse. If he had waited like he was supposed to, he couldn't use Weapon Finesse until 3rd level. This means that he is actuall 1 level ahead of where he should be. This is a bonus rather than a penalty. Using the examples you gave, you would be getting the feats up to 3 levels sooner than you should. This is most definately a bonus.
EvilSqueegee 04-08-06, 10:53 AM	It's actually a bonus rather than a penalty. Take a look at the Weapon Focus feat. It has Prerequiste of +1 BAB. If the rogue takes it at level 1, when he doesn't qualify, he has wasted a feat slot. Not that big of a deal considering he could have taken another feat that would have been a waste as well with no real impact (Skill Focus: Profession [Sailor]). Now, at 2nd level he gets to use Weapon Finesse. If he had waited like he was supposed to, he couldn't use Weapon Finesse until 3rd level. This means that he is actuall 1 level ahead of where he should be. This is a bonus rather than a penalty. Using the examples you gave, you would be getting the feats up to 3 levels sooner than you should. This is most definately a bonus. I will never understand how so many people manage to fit what I said into a quarter of the words I said it with. :)
kelvinaw273 04-08-06, 12:24 PM	Options aside, how can one learn to run before one learns to walk? If your BAB is +0, you haven't learned enough about combat to take a feat which requires a +1 BAB as a prerequisite. If your STR isn't 13, there is no way you can properly master the techniques of a Power Attack or Psionic Fist. If you can't master Power Attack or Psionic Fist, you can't take other feats which have those prerequisites. One can study a technique without making it work. But I do take the point of the other posters, that it would be unbalancing. Ultimately it would be a DM call. If the DM wants a high-powered party at higher level, he can admit it. If he wants a more 'realistic' high level party, he can sink it.
Arikail 04-08-06, 01:21 PM	I personally see no problem with it, and have always run with the idea that feat pre-req's are what are required to use the feat, not what's required to learn it. It has not noticeably increased the power level in the game, and has allowed some people to stay a little more true to the character concept they had in mind. On the other hand, I don't allow a character to be training in any more than one feat at a time (no more than one feat they don't meet the pre-req's for), that way things don't get too out of hand. Overall, it's your decision. I will note that we play in slightly more high powered games than average, so YMMV.
DM_Firecracker 04-08-06, 02:49 PM	I have a house rule that you can't take a feat early; however you can save a feat to take later (such as 2nd level for weap fin); however, there is still a catch. If you save a feat you must still wait the three levels to get the next one (thus making it level 4 before you can take a new feat. That really makes characters think twice about saving a feat, and often will add a fighter level or something (when allowed) There are two exceptions to this rule. One is the human bonus feat. I will allow a character to take this feat whenever they want, instead of only at first level, and it doesn't change their normal feat progression. So far I haven't found any imballance to doing this. The other exception is with bonus feats. these must be taken at the level they are aquired, and cannot be saved. I do this because they are the class features, and I think that letting a fighter wait till 15th elvel to take all the previous bonus feats would make me cry as DM.
DrMorganes 04-08-06, 05:24 PM	One can study a technique without making it work. But I do take the point of the other posters, that it would be unbalancing. Ultimately it would be a DM call. If the DM wants a high-powered party at higher level, he can admit it. If he wants a more 'realistic' high level party, he can sink it. At which point you are still in the "study" phase. Skill points, feats, and various other class features are assumed to be "studied" in the non-rollplayed downtime of each game day - y'know those 8 hours of "rest" which generally come before the actual sleepytime. Level-based games like D&D assume such accrual over time, but a character doesn't actually GET the feat, skill points, new spell, etc until she meets the prerequisites AND gains an appropriate level. So sure, you can study the concepts of weapon finesse until the cows come home, you can practice the principles you study, but you don't actually GET the feat until your BAB hits +1.