Post/Author/DateTime	Post
snakeman830 07-08-07, 06:34 PM	To change things up a bit, I like to sometimes add feat trainers into the game. They can only train PC's in Fighter bonus feat options (though some spellcasters can train in Wizard bonus feat options). The PC's must still meet all prerequisites for the feat. Naturally, this service doesn't come cheap (I price the feats ad hoc, because there's virtually no concieveable way a formula can be come up with). What I want to know is: Do the rest of you think this is unbalancing? If so, please state why. If not, I wonder how many of you have thought about doing this.
Aratex 07-08-07, 06:42 PM	I've considered doing something similar to this, but have never had the guts to go through with it. I personally think it's the only way some of the weaker feats (+2 to two skills or +2 to a save, for example) would ever be used in one of my games. I always fear for balance, though.. but I think as long as careful restraint is used when deciding what feats to 'sell' and for how much, it shouldn't hurt anything. Especially as long as every character is given equal access to a roughly equal number of feats that are useful to them, everyone should be happy. It would likely take a lot of balancing work if you wanted to make much available, but it would open some interesting doors.
Symar 07-08-07, 07:10 PM	It could be similar to the "MAgical Locations" listed in some books- where you get some ability for a certain amount of time, and it has a value attached. You use it in place of treasure.
Anathema 07-08-07, 07:59 PM	I've modified the Affiliations found in the PHB II for this sort of thing. Basically the players associate themselves with an organization (small 'o'), which then leads to a number of adventures for them to increase their standing with said organization. Either direct duties for them, or obtaining indirect things that increase their standing (ex: finding a relic associated with a church, though they wern't specifically sent to find one). As their standing with the organization (small 'o') increases, they gain new benefits. The benefits I've chosen are feats that relate to their class and the organization, such as a rogue adventuring for a mage academy gets a fancy feat with a magical bent, and other small bonuses like a free skill trick. My main goal with this is to allow a player to qualify for a prestiege class without wasting valuable feat slots on crap feats. I also grant a few bonus skill ranks where applicable so they don't have to waste valuable skill points either (which are low enough). I also use this idea to grant some Tome of Battle feats that grant maneuvers and stances. It's like a fighting style that someone trains in and gains a few unique abilities without getting too carried away with the power. Just some advice as to how I've been inspired by some variant rules to correct what I see as a defecit with the system .. that being too few feats and too few skill points.
Dragonsblood 07-08-07, 08:11 PM	I think this is a bad idea. It is unbalancing because it adds more hassle to fighters, which are already weaker than other classes. And it will be tiresome for your players to only be able to train in town when they level up in the wilderness. Depending on how much loot you give your PCs, the monetary cost will add another layer of unbalance for the weak fighter class.
Elemental_Elf 07-08-07, 08:51 PM	I think this is a bad idea. It is unbalancing because it adds more hassle to fighters, which are already weaker than other classes. And it will be tiresome for your players to only be able to train in town when they level up in the wilderness. Depending on how much loot you give your PCs, the monetary cost will add another layer of unbalance for the weak fighter class. This idea of buying feats intrigues me, but people are right, it does make the Fighter even weaker over all. Having said that, you could get rid of the Fighter all together. I mean the Samurai in the Oriental Adventures is already a better Fighter as is the Warblade from the Tome of Battle. And its not like theres a lack of good Full BAB Warriors in the game. Of course you could keep it, no harm in it, so long as your players know it is a sub-par choice.
Anathema 07-08-07, 09:16 PM	Why would this weaken a fighter? Are they not allowed to 'buy' feats?
Rowan_Whispercloak 07-08-07, 09:29 PM	Why would this weaken a fighter? Are they not allowed to 'buy' feats? I think the idea behind this weakening the fighter is from the virtue of "selling" his class feature.
Anathema 07-08-07, 09:33 PM	A fighter isn't going to be weakened by allowing everyone to get bonus feats. Especially if the DM has a tight control on which feats can be bought. Plus, what if the OP doesn't even have a fighter in his game? This isn't a D&D-wide change, just a thought for his game. Besides, if you can see it as 'selling the fighter's class feature' in one hand, the other hand sees it as 'gaining the fighter's class features sooner and without levelling up'. It might even be better if they're not restricted to fighter feats.
loaba 07-08-07, 09:36 PM	I think the idea behind this weakening the fighter is from the virtue of "selling" his class feature. Exactly - you're telling the Fighter you can't take X feat because no one is there to train you. If the player wants X feat they have to wait until such a time when training is available (thereby gimping the character, if only for a short time). Please place me in the camp that says this is a bad idea. Thank you, that is all.
Anathema 07-08-07, 09:48 PM	That's a flaw of the way the DM chooses to implement a feature like this; not inherent to the idea of giving the players feats they can train outside of what they're given at a specific level.
Board_Rider 07-08-07, 09:51 PM	I think it only a bad idea if someone wanted to play the Fighter base class for an extended period of time. If not I say roll with it but provide a cap of feats that can be learned (i.e - every 4 levels). As far as it being unbalanced...maybe. If you don't allow this "training" for NPCs then things could get ugly fast. A 3rd level Human Rogue NPC with 3 feats may be no match for a 3rd level Human Rogue with 5 feats although it would depends on the feats taken and the what comparisons are being made.
loaba 07-08-07, 09:59 PM	That's a flaw of the way the DM chooses to implement a feature like this; not inherent to the idea of giving the players feats they can train outside of what they're given at a specific level. If you're saying that these trained feats are in addition to what a Fighter already recieves, then I have no problem with the general idea. My big problem with the idea is, say at 4th level, I want to take Specialization and the DM says "no, there is no one who can train you in your weapon right now, choose something else". That would be crappy. Now, if in addition to my Specialization training, there was someone who could train me in another Feat as well, for a price, that would be okay. Somehow, I don't think that was what the OP was intending.
Symar 07-08-07, 10:00 PM	Exactly - you're telling the Fighter you can't take X feat because no one is there to train you. If the player wants X feat they have to wait until such a time when training is available (thereby gimping the character, if only for a short time). Please place me in the camp that says this is a bad idea. Thank you, that is all. I was understanding this as a "you can spend money to get a bonus feat", not as a "you need to spend money to get one of your standard/class feats".
loaba 07-08-07, 10:02 PM	I was understanding this as a "you can spend money to get a bonus feat", not as a "you need to spend money to get one of your standard/class feats". If that is the case, then I would be willing to explore the concept more fully. :D
AAB 07-08-07, 11:51 PM	correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that a price-per-level guideline would be the most balanced. like, say, 15% of the gold a character should have at that level (going by DMG pg 135). note that i'm not saying that 15% is THE NUMBER to go with. it was just a number i randomly picked. more thought would have to go into it.
Jason Snyder 07-09-07, 09:09 AM	My main goal with this is to allow a player to qualify for a prestiege class without wasting valuable feat slots on crap feats. Initially, I was thinking that this buying of feats wouldn't be a bad idea - so long as it was kept to the "weak" feats. However, this line pointed out to me what a bad idea it is. The "crap" feat requirements of various prestige classes were explicitly put there as a way to limit the power and availability of prestige classes. Many a build on the CO boards would be insanely broken, except that there were just not enough feats or skill points to pull it off. If you let them bypass feat & skill limitations, these builds become viable and broken-ness might break out. All that said, it is of course your campaign. If your players are not power gamers and are looking to "go on a quest to find the super-grandmaster of investigation" so as to learn from him... that certainly is workable. Just be aware that this could be quite open to abuse.
snakeman830 07-09-07, 09:32 AM	I was understanding this as a "you can spend money to get a bonus feat", not as a "you need to spend money to get one of your standard/class feats". This is the case, to clear up the confusion. That, and I do it very rarely (I think once or twice in my campaign that started at level 1 and is now at level 15)
Gerry 07-09-07, 10:06 AM	Well, I allow Limited Wish to grant them. One Limited Wish if you qualify, additional Limited Wish per missing qualification. And they've rescued a mage who let them buy 3 Limited Wishes each. Everyone went for it. We also used Flaws and Traits out of Unearthed Arcana, so my PCs are definitely high-powered. I'm calculating XP as if they were higher level. Gerry.
snakeman830 07-10-07, 10:27 AM	:bump:
zorgling25 07-10-07, 11:10 AM	I see three inherent problems to this system: 1) The fighter WOULD be further underpowered. The large number of fighter bonus feats gave the fighter one of their sole advantages in that they could access longer feat chains and have the prerequisite feats for certain things (e.g. Prestige Classes) earlier. Now that bonus feats are available earlier, anyone can access the longer feat chains with money, and access prerequisites earlier, diminishing the Fighter's almost sole advantage. 2) Prestige Class qualifications. While many prestige classes do have "crap" feat qualifications, these are mostly to prevent characters of too low a level qualifying for them, as most PrCs ARE more powerful than the base classes. If the crap feats are the prime thing that bothers you, alter the PrCs by changing their feat requirements, which has less of a possibility for adverse repercussions throughout the rest of the game. 3) Exceptionally high-powered characters. This is a minor problem and can probably be solved by using the Epic 6th (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200754) variant of advancing CR by bonus feats.
Lazigothi 07-10-07, 12:06 PM	I think buying feats is okay as long as all classes receive their feats normally as classes advance. I'd say that feat trees should have a scaled price compared with "crap" feats. I also like the idea of feats taking effect after a special encounter as another mode of acess. During rare/ unique moments for a character, they gain something special, and it doesn't have to be a feat. Maybe they just iced a Great Wyrm Black Dragon, went to the Abyss for a while, etc. There are over 3,000 feats out there, and I think additional means taken to enjoy those outside the core books can make the campaign more exciting.
zelf_gale 07-10-07, 12:14 PM	I think that feats without a prerequisite especially the +2 to two skill feats could be be allowed to be purchased. You'd have to price the training as an unslotted magical item that granted the feat so it'd be expensive, but doable.
iggyzillious 07-10-07, 04:13 PM	My opinion is that allowing character to buy feats would: A) Cheapen the rewards of leveling and only giving this to fighters and wizards who already have bonus feats would result in upsetting the other players in the party. B) This isn't Final Fantasy, feats should not be for sale, you shouldn't be able to just buy all of your feats way before your a high enough level to achieve them feats make more sense when through the time they adventure and level up they have learned new feats. Sure it does seem probable that you could learn from a seasoned fighter how to work on your sunder skills but the same could be said for any class and it takes the decisions out of making tough feat choices for characters. C) Lastly with the ever expanding list of feats and the addition of more seemingly overpowered feat combo's (PHB II) among others you are just asking for problems. The only ways i think varient learning of feats would work would be through the use of artifacts or as rewards for a very interesting use of the PC's skills in an adventure that you think would warrant the learning of the feat. This option opens up the can of worms of metagaming pc's doing actions that they feel would warrant the feats. An example [Billy the Rogue sees the party is in trouble and in a last ditch effort the person playing Billy says I crit the giant spiders so hard that i add my sneak attack damage.] This is a definite red flag hehe.
ccerose 07-10-07, 05:10 PM	Several of the items in the Magic Item Compendium grant feat like abilities. Some of them are continuous effects, while others have a limited number of uses per day. The players like the granted abilities and I have found them to be very balanced.
Jagyr Ebonwood 07-10-07, 05:52 PM	You'd have to price the training as an unslotted magical item that granted the feat so it'd be expensive, but doable. Exactly. Take a look at some of the slotted items that grant feats. I think adding "unslotted" to an item doubles the price, so, if you're willing to pay that much gold...go ahead, spend it on Skill Focus if you want.
zorgling25 07-10-07, 06:22 PM	Several of the items in the Magic Item Compendium grant feat like abilities. Some of them are continuous effects, while others have a limited number of uses per day. The players like the granted abilities and I have found them to be very balanced. It really depends how much control you have as a DM and how much trust there is between you and your players. I doubt that in the MIC that there is an item that grants Divine Metamagic, for example. Yet at the same time, its one of the most abusable feats out there. Being able to buy it would make it even more abusable.
Allarian 07-10-07, 07:22 PM	We are playing a game where you can by feats and skill points, these basically amount to training or experience that the player has had so there really is no reason that you cannot buy them. However training takes time when the feat is not one you normally get, while you are training your not aventuring, you have to pay for the time of the trainer (unless they're feeling generous) and the materials that you use learning, and your room and board while you train. Tank: I'm going to train for greatcleave so I can get lots of free attacks! Party: well we're going to adventure, have fun. Later Party: So after we dropped the rock one the dragon we looted its hoard and leveled up, twice. So what did you do? Tank: I got greatcleave. unsuprisingly no one has taken the chance to train in game yet.
MerlintheTuna 07-10-07, 07:36 PM	The "crap" feat requirements of various prestige classes were explicitly put there as a way to limit the power and availability of prestige classes.Maybe, maybe not, but this doesn't always work out in practice. For example, unless you stretch pretty far beyond core, the Dwarven Defender isn't a very impressive class (and even then it's questionable), but it requires three feats that are pretty miserable. Others are nearly worth taking, but not quite because of a non-synergistic feat. And some aren't worth it no matter how many feats you throw at them. The bottom line is that game balance is anything but perfect and swings wildly depending on what sources you're looking at. As always, the degree to which you can play with this idea is going to depend on your group. If you have someone dead-set on playing a Fighter, it'll likely be problematic. If someone uses it to jump into Master of Nine in a hurry, it might also be problematic. (On the other hand, it might not. MoN is often cited as a trap, as the payoff isn't that huge and it eats up pretty much all of your feats.) In general, though, I support giving players more feats than usual. Feats are a primary way to customize a character, and handing out little ones as from time to time can be a real pleasure for players. After all, not many people are going to burn a 9th level feat on Quick Draw, but it's not likely to destroy your game if you give it to a PC.
CryoSilver 07-10-07, 11:14 PM	You'd probably need to price out the feats in relation to an item that can do the same. Most feats are worth between ten and twenty thousand gp.
snakeman830 07-12-07, 09:42 AM	:bump:
spoogemonkey 07-12-07, 06:09 PM	Selling Feats is a horrible, horrible idea...... They SHOULD be rare..... that's why you only get them every 3 levels.... and your party SHOULDN'T be able to afford them IF they were properly priced. You should have to earn a feat.
FoolForThought 07-12-07, 07:20 PM	So long as all players have the option to train in a feat it is balanced. As a DM you can always increase the difficulty of the opponents to offset the players additional abilities.