Now, 6 years after the release of 3rd edition, we have seen a dozen or so first party supplements for 3.0, dozens for 3.5, and innumerable third party supplements for both 3.0 and 3.5. And in each, what have we found? More feats, more options for character customization. But how many of us realize how many options we actually have? As of August 8th, 2006, the feat index (found at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats ) lists 2817 results. Yes, some of those are duplicate entries, but there are still more feats than any one character could ever hope of gaining. More importantly, the multitude of feats seems to take away from character customization, in that a character can perform some actions (cinematically), yet they will have no impact on an encounter mechanically.
Because of the volume of feats at our disposal, I recommend increasing the amount of feats a character gains over a period of 20 levels. Below are listed 3 alternative feat progressions, along with the progression as it appears in the PHB. Each of these models has been play tested, and details will accompany the description of individual models. Be aware that each of these feat progressions has the potential to throw off game balance. I cannot stress enough the need for discretion when changing the number of feats granted to PCs. Ultimately, none of these should be used without the approval of the group’s PCs and each of the players.
Core
1st Feat
2nd
3rd Feat
4th
5th
6th Feat
7th
8th
9th Feat
10th
11th
12th Feat
13th
14th
15th Feat
16th
17th
18th Feat
19th
20th
Above is the “core” feat progression, as listed in the PHB. This progression grants a total of 7 feats to a non-human character, assuming no bonus feats from class levels.
Model 1
1st Feat
2nd Feat
3rd
4th Feat
5th
6th Feat
7th
8th Feat
9th
10th Feat
11th
12th Feat
13th
14th Feat
15th
16th Feat
17th
18th Feat
19th
20th Feat
The above model slightly increases the amount of feats a player gains over 20 levels, increasing the total for a non-human from 7 to 11. I myself have run games using this system, and it does not alter game balance in drastic ways, although I would recommend the use of discretion in awarding magic items and treasure to the party using this system, to ensure that the party’s power does not grow too much.
Model 2
1st Feat
2nd Feat
3rd Feat
4th Feat
5th Feat
6th Feat
7th Feat
8th Feat
9th Feat
10th Feat
11th Feat
12th Feat
13th Feat
14th Feat
15th Feat
16th Feat
17th Feat
18th Feat
19th Feat
20th Feat
This model is a drastic increase from the core rules, more than doubling the number of feats gained over 20 levels. As with model 1, this progression requires careful attention from the DM. The amount of feats a character using this feat progression should need less magical equipment than a character using model 1.
Model 3
1st 2 Feats
2nd Feat
3rd 2 Feats
4th Feat
5th Feat
6th 2 Feats
7th Feat
8th Feat
9th 2 Feats
10th Feat
11th Feat
12th 2 Feats
13th Feat
14th Feat
15th 2 Feats
16th Feat
17th Feat
18th 2 Feats
19th Feat
20th Feat
The final model drastically increases the amount of feats attained of 20 levels from 7 to 27. I would only recommend this feat progression in a game that places the emphasis on character ability/story development rather than treasure.
All three of these models have been tested in game. Model 1 can be used with little to no change in party wealth while 2 and 3 require some alteration to the wealth curve to preserve game balance. These alterations provide two incentives. The first is an increased level of character customization. Using any of these models allows a character to gain access to more character defining traits that include mechanical implications than the core progression does. Secondly, these progressions, especially the 3rd, tend to swing the motives of characters away from treasure, forcing the game into a more story/character ability direction, rather than a glorified treasure hunt. Of course, some magic items will be necessary, but I doubt that many characters will need the kind of cash that they do using the standard rules.
Secondly, these progressions, especially the 3rd, tend to swing the motives of characters away from treasure, forcing the game into a more story/character ability direction, rather than a glorified treasure hunt.
Do you mean your character has the feats to do everything so he doesn't need items? This could have a interesting spin off of a feat like system that makes your items magic.
Improved Toughness grants 1 hp per level. An Amulet of Health +2 (value 4,000 gp) grants 1 hp per level, +1 on Fortitude saves, and +1 on all Constitution based skills (Concentration, most significantly).
Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will and Great Fortitude grant +2 to all saves collectively. For 4,000 gp, one can purchase a Cloak of Resistance +2.
Power Attack allows a conversion of to-hit to damage. Divine Favor in item form grants a static increase to both.
It would be rare to find a feat that duplicates a magical item or power worth much more than 10,000 gp, and at higher levels, that's basically pocket change. The only exceptions are the high-end feats of longer chains (Whirlwind Attack, Greater Weapon Specialization), and even these are not much more valuable. Now, even at a feat every level, you end up gaining roughly 200,000 gp in item worth, at 10,000 gp per feat. However, that will be dispersed over, well, 20 feats. What would it be more advantageous to have at high level: several powerful items, or many very weak items?
You can see my point, I'm sure. Giving all classes a few bonus feats is all well and dandy, and can be compensated for by reducing the point buy by a couple points, but greatly increasing feats and reducing treasure fragments power into uselessly small bits at higher levels. This is the complaint of the fighter: there are many feats, and he gets many, but none of them are individually powerful enough to match high-level treasure or class features.
I, too, have considered the problem of the Options-to-Usage problem. And while I do consider it an issue, I don't believe it needs to be fixed, and definitely not in as drastic a fashion as you suggest. My (only) attempt at solving the problem was to alter the number of feats characters got - instead of giving them out every 3rd level, characters got them every odd level. (Similar to your model.) I felt this was a better change than your proposed 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., as it gave Fighters something to look forward to. (Namely, a feat every level.)
I then realized that if I gave characters that many feats, I would have to allow the same for creatures. When it dawned on me I had to rewrite every monster in the book instead of being able to plop one out of the MM at the drop of a pin, I realized this whole more-feat alteration was unnecessary and frankly turns the feat from what it is - a scarce resource which must be carefully administered - into what it should not be: a cool new thing I can do every (other) level. (Yes, that's right: Feats should be scarce. That's why PrCs, especially particularly powerful PrCs, make you choose crappy feats in order to qualify! If you up the number of feats available to the player, the less sacrifice they have to make in terms of personal power, the more powerful their characters become.)
Your eye for spotting an issue isn't off; it's just not a problem. Players, at least in my games - and I hope in the game of any DM who doesn't feel like reinventing the wheel every session, - will have to live with the crushing disappointment of just a feat every third level. That or take Fighter levels. 'Cause, dude.
I would love to see a couple of changes for 4E:
1. Character customization choices at every level. If not a bonus feat, each class should offer some type of choice of a class-related specialty. Ideally each class would have "feat trees" similar to the ranger's current TWF vs. Ranged specializations. It's just plain boring to reach level 5 or 7 as a fighter. You should get something every level.
2. Some way to balance the "useful" feats (weapon focus, power attack, etc.) against the "non-useful" feats (acrobatic, investigator). It's nice to have feats that provide character flavor, but the player shouldn't feel that he's being penalized for taking them. Maybe each character should begin with a certain number of "non-useful" feats at level 1, allowing a certain level of flavor and customization off the bat without allowing for too much min/maxing of level 1 characters.
Just my 2 coppers. ;)
Fighters have no need for this many feats. It’s bad enough when most people consider the fighter class to be a 2 lvl dip class with 6 whole levels, after which you PrC out. Really, with these they aren't even needed as a dip class anymore. Who needs the fighter for anything now? Really, all I see this doing it pumping up casters (giving them more metamagic, spell focus and such) while making fighters less useful even at LOW levels. Now they have feats to waste on maneuvers they wont even use probably, like feint, since they have bluff as a cross class skill.
Sorry, but I really don't see the point of this.
This is why I create characters using the BESM d20 class-less system. Plenty of room for customization, and less balancing headaches to deal with (especially with the revamped magic system - no more exponential caster power growth!).
It's a good option to have for a DM who wants to base his campaign around personal development rather than the acquisition of wealth, but ultimately it's just a matter of choice: There's more magic items than can ever by had by one character as well.
The biggest thing to keep in mind about using innate powers and abilities (like feats) instead of equipment, is that it's much harder to take them away. A knight with a potent magical sword can be disarmed, robbed, or have his weapon destroyed, a monk who's fists can shatter stone is a bit harder to disarm.
After all, some of the most compelling adventures are ones where a high level party is bereft of their equipment--such as chasing down a villain in a city where carrying weapons is prohibited. Sometimes, that's all there is to break up the monotony of "I whack it with my sword until it stops moving." On the other hand, the idea of a monk whose hands become intelligent magic weapons with their own egos could be quite interesting...
When I run games I give my players one extra feat at first level, it's not game breaking at all, but I don't think I’d allow some of your models for feat acquirement, maybe model 1, but never model 2 or 3. The problem is that there is already a class which is based on feat gaining: our daily fighter. Who would play a fighter (11 fighter feats) if you can get 11 feats by playing any class with lots of class features, that's enough for almost any build, mechanically speaking, and more than enough for character customization? In fact, when I added the extra feat at first level, it was for role playing reasons, to give the players more tools for creating background (in fact, I also give 10 more hit points for medium characters, and 2 free skill points that must be spent in Craft, Perform, Profession or Knowledge[any]) so the players doesn't feel like newborns at first level.
Even with only 1 extra feat, I saw the Fighter got even more underpowered that it already is, so I had to add some features to the Fighter Class to make it more interesting (4 + int mod skill points per level and an extra fighter bonus feat at 19 level).
I think the core rules for feat acquirement progression are somewhat balanced, and even the first model proposed in the thread is a bit unbalancing.
That said, core Modern characters do have more feats but the mechanic for for this is in the class templates. Basic Classes gains bonus feat every even class level. Advanced Classes gain a bonus feat at class levels 3, 6, & 9. So far, my players and I are very happy with the change.
I have been very impressed with Modern, but I realise it's not well suited to D&D/fantasy style games. Increasing character level based benefits is less disruptive than retrofitting class features to get what you want BUT I don't like the idea of letting the players get so many free choices. It makes more sense to give them a focused list to choose from to specialise their character. Higher levels should encourage specialisation, not generalisation.
It works perfectly
The model I was considering wouldn’t affect low levels until 5th level. Which can still help keep PrC as is, without having to rewrite them to ensure normal entry into them.
Model
1st Feat
2nd
3rd Feat
4th
5th Feat
6th
7th Feat
8th
9th Feat
10th
11th Feat
12th
13th Feat
14th
15th Feat
16th
17th Feat
18th
19th Feat
20th
This model gives the character 10 feats, while meshing pretty well with the fighter class. This is a modest jump from 7 feats, and has the advantage of being easier to implement against the standard core version.
Model 1
1st Feat
2nd Feat
3rd
4th Feat
5th
6th Feat
7th
8th Feat
9th
10th Feat
11th
12th Feat
13th
14th Feat
15th
16th Feat
17th
18th Feat
19th
20th Feat
The major problem with this progression, is that for a straight fighter, it means that at every odd-numbered level after 1st, he receives 0 feats, and at every even-numbered level, he receives 2 feats. Such a severely staggered progression feels unnatural, and exacerbates the "empty level syndrome" that fighters experience. Even if it means somewhat less feats, I would suggest changing this progression to a feat at every odd-numbered level, even if it reduces the total number of feats from 11 to 10.
I just find it ridiculous that things like Alertness and Track have the same worth (speaking in required feat slots) that Shock Trooper or Craft Contingent Spell.
Therefore I decided to make a different approach to the topic in my own game setting (see signature). Instead of plain "feat slots", a character gains 1 feat point at every level, similar to your "model 2". Each feat, however, has 4 ranks -- with each rank possibly having different prerequisites.
For example, Improved Initiative might look like the following in my system:
Improved Initiative [General]
You have exceptionally quick reflexes, and can react to events even when others are still surprised by the situation.
Prerequisites:
- Rank 1: ---
- Rank 2: ---
- Rank 3: Dex 13, Wis 15
- Rank 4: Dex 15, Wis 17
Benefit:
- Rank 1: You gain a +2 bonus to initiative.
- Rank 2: You gain an additional +2 bonus (for a total of +4) to initiative.
- Rank 3: You gain an additional +2 bonus (for a total of +6) to initiative. In addition, once per combat you may swap initative order with any other combatant who goes immediately before or after you.
- Rank 4: You gain an additional +2 bonus (for a total of +8) to initiative. In addition, you may swap initiative order with any other combatant as often as you like per combat.
My idea is that at rank 2, my feats would have the same benefit as the standard d20 feats, with the exception of feats I personally think are very weak, like the afore mentioned Alertness.
But for a "normal" d20 game, your idea has some very interesting potential. I would just highly advise the DM to take care of the feats a character can take.
In theory, feats should be a nice little extra, to help your character stand out. But in practice they're almost always the focal point of the build. You have to have certain feats to qualify for most PrC's, or you have to select several feats in a chain just to get the one that you want. That being the case, most of the time you're stuck with one of a handful of preapproved groups of feats, or you have your entire character's future progression based around grabbing certain feats by a certain time, just so you can qualify for the PrC that you want.
Increasing the number of feats allows the characters more options. You can take sub-optimal ones that are only for PrC entry requirements and still have some choice. You can take all the ones you need to complete the chain, plus have a few "free feats" left over to personalize your character.
My DM has play-tested both of the first two options listed above, and it did not significantly effect gameplay. But it did make things more fun, as PC's could "blow" a feat on a suboptimal choice just because it was fitting for their characters, and not be afraid that it would "gimp" their character forevermore. Things remain relatively the same power-wise, because a spellcaster can still only apply so many Metamagic feats to one spell or craft so many magical items without running out of money. Melee characters can only attack so many times in a round...they simply have a greater range of maneuvers to choose from.
The first component of my solution is to disallow all magic items that grant numerical bonuses to AC, Saves and Ability scores. (I'm still trying to figure out what to do with magic weapons and armor, which are more interesting than the usual battery of amulets, gloves, belts, etc.) The second necessary component will involve some combination of more generous ability score generation and more generous feat progression.
So two questions: Just how drastic is the reduction in average character wealth?
How were the test characters' ability scores generated?
The problem from my perspective is people that want too many feats, especially those that they don’t actually NEED. Sure, you might want to be a super archer, but do you need Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, or Alertness? Its kind of like people who want tons and tons of skill points because they want to be good at everything all at once.
I tackle this problem by determining what feats I absolutely must have for a concept or build that I want. Sure, I might want Improved Initiative so that my total bonus to Init can be in the stratosphere, but I need Manyshot if I want to be able to fire multiple shots with a standard action.
I think the biggest change to face in changing the feat progression is not how to balance the monsters, but how to rebalance fighters. Fighters main attraction is their number of feats, and when you increase the total number of feats, you depreciate the value of each individual feat. In my game, I made the weapon style feats and the tactical feats (both from Complete Warrior) have a fighter level requirement (like weapon spec.) I’m still not happy with fighter, though; and have considered rebuilding the class from the ground up (maybe making the tactical feats and weapon style feats special abilities, similar to the rogues special abilities, and including a few more for the fighter to chose from.) I also may look into improving the fighter's skill list.
As far as balancing challenges, I give NPCs and monsters a bonus feat for every seven HD they have. It's not exact, but it's a pretty close approximation to the PC's bonus feats. I keep a list of likely feats tucked into my MM so I don't need to do any work in the fly.
My players have been happy with the system, as have I. It allows me to use a slower level advancement instead of the DMG's breakneck level-up speed, but the players still feel rewarded, as there are no 'wasted levels' in which they only get hit points and skills. A slower leveling advancement means a longer and more engaging campaign. Also, they don't have to buy or find the tomes that increase stats, instead their stats increase naturally, through hard work and persistence on the characters part, not due to a book.
1st 1 feat
2nd 1 feat
3rd 1 feat
4th 1 feat
5th 1 feat
6th 1 feat
7th
8th 1 feat
9th
10th 1 feat
11th
12th 1 feat
13th
14th
15th 1 feat
16th
17th
18th 1 feat
19th
20th
Total: 11 feats. Three extra feats at low-levels, and one extra feat at mid-levels. This would allow for low-level characters to have a little more power and customization while keeping the high levels close to core.
Lately I've been of the opinion that all special abilities should be converted into feats (with prerequisites) and these "Class ability feats" would be granted at every level. Many prestige classes are simply combinations of existing special abilities (such as evasion), so it would make sense to generalize them.
Monkey Grip, Mage Slayer, Ranged Disarm, and Two-Wand Wielding are just a few of the abominations that should have never been published.
I would much rather see the improved trip/disarm/etc and crafting feats become part of the skill system. Additionally the rest of the core feats could be used as class only feats similar to the ranger/rogue/monk class choices.
Be aware that more feats to choose from (with each additional source allowed) already increases the power of the feats allotted to players because of power creep. Isn't that enough?
Also, unlike many abilities, as you have mentioned, increasing or decreasing their number on makes slight differences in character power. I think, however, that just handing out more feats wholesale, while possible, does not entirely address the issue. Feats should be more than mechanical options. They are, and should be, part of character customization.
That said, if you just give more feats, you will merely increase the rapidity with which feat chains and mechanical combinations are reached. The extra feats have a better use than wholesale addition. Bonus feats make for wonderful treasure in a campaign. That way, the DM in collaboration with the Player, can bestow bonus feats without fear of unbalancing the campaign and without the bias to mechanically optimized feats that the Player has.
For example: The party has to get past the encampment of the Blood Tusk clan to get a message from the elven line to the dwarven reinforcements behind the enemy position. Before heading out, the elves show the fighter techniques for silencing his noisy plate mail by wrapping it intricately with cloth and taking off the reflective sheen with greasepaints. During the adventure, he enjoys a +2 bonus to Move Silently and Hide from the changes. Later on, once the adventure has ended, he voices his interest in continuing the habits he has learned. Awarding him the Stealthy feat is only a natural part of the treasure for the adventure.
Another example: During the pitched battle where the Orcs, now flanked by the allied forces, put up a stronger resistance than anticipated (since their escape route was cut off and they are facing hated enemies), the Wizard of the party runs out of spells, and falls back on his Wand of MM. An above average intelligence Orc, however, steps in and Sunders the Wand. Now, the near helpless Wizard, rather than retreating, takes up his staff and steps up to the front to hold the line (Shield and Mage Armor supporting his courage). After the battle, part of the award might include Wpn Focus: Staff for the Wizard.
In both of those examples, good and useful feats were given to characters who likely would never have actually chosen those feats. Both, however, also encourage heroic actions and deeper interaction with the game world. Also, both offer real bonuses without any possibility of overpowering a character or breaking the game.
1) "perceived", not "percieved" (i before e except after c, remember?)
2)
Ultimately, none of these should be used without the approval of the group’s PCs and each of the players.
Don't you mean "DM" rather than "PCs"?
As for the substance of the idea itself, I'm a bit more conservative about this kind of houserule. I think I could enjoy 1) as an alternative to a treasure incentive, particularly in a low magic game, but 2) and 3) seem to be taking things a bit far, imho. (Of course, I haven't actually playtested them myself.)
It seems that increasing the number of feats on offer could lead to characters with a much broader skillset, since many feat trees are staggered by BAB increments, character levels, spellcaster levels etc., and others, such as some of the metamagic feats, only really become useful at higher levels. Which would be nice. I was looking at a Paladin build, and wanted to go with the mounted combat feat tree as well as the power attack tree, in addition to the ubiquitous weapon focus, but it would have taken way too many levels to get both going well. But fighters and "human" players might complain - if everyone gets lots of feats, they (especially fighters) lose their one big competitive advantage. Possibly you'd have to give them something extra again to compensate. Just my opinion, of course.
He suggests expanding feats available to characters. But two of his options seem ridiculously generous. I have played in such games and they can be fun. But the most common version I have seen is a feat at every odd level. This gives you 10 feats versus the 7 that is standard. This gives about a 50% increase similar to the version 1 he offers which gives 11 feats. The power level of characters using such enhanced feat progressions is vastly more powerful, making it easier to gain difficult to achieve PrCs and expensive feats. This allows earlier entry to options that grant fairly powerful options.
I wouldn't recommend using The 2nd or 3rd versions of his at all. And if you use the 11 feat (or 10 feat) progressions, be sure to restrict treasure to compensate. At least if you don't wish to rewrite the CR scale from scratch.
I suppose you could increase the rate at which fighters get feats every time you went to a more generous model, but once you have 15 feats, more will tend to get redundant. Even leaving core behind, how many feats can one realistically expect anyone to need? I am aware that a 12th level fighter can spend 5 feats on a single weapon (WF to GWS plus Improved Critical) and enough different weapons might seem a way to spend feats, but again a point might be quickly reached where the extra feats were mostly unused.
One question--this has been playtested, but to what levels? All the way to 20th on each model? Did you modify the Fighter class? If so, how? If not, did anyone play fighters (in each different model)?
I would also like to say that I agree with everything else you have posted. I have found that in most "normal" games the struggle to survive (let's face it, somehow the published monsters have gotten tougher) usually takes the PCs from the story to hunting for tangible benefits that allow them to survive another day.
2) You indirectly are tremendously weakening Fighters, and few people consider Fighters to be over-powered. Even assuming your declaration that Model 1 does not affect the game significantly. The fighters main power/ability is the fact that they get the feats. By giving everyone so many feats, you remove their special power. In effect you have to reduce the power of a fighter.
If the player wants more feats, play the fighter, don't play a barbarian and complain you don't have enough feats.
Doing what you did is like saying "Characters are dying too soon. Everyone will now have d12's for hitpoints, regardless of the character class you play." The mages etc. will be happy but the Barbarians will be ticked at you and no one will play one.
3) Your base assumption is false. Feats are not just character defining things. You can define your character fine without the extra powers. You don't need to have all the archery based feats to be an archer.
A real world example would be some one saying "If I can't own one of every single gun in the world, I am worthless as a gun fighter".
You don't need all, you just need the one. The existence of others is for variety BETWEEN characters, not an increase in power of a single character
I myself use a 10 % treasure decrease and this:
1st Feat
2nd
3rd Feat
4th
5th Feat
6th
7th Feat
8th
9th Feat
10th
11th Feat
12th
13th Feat
14th
15th Feat
16th
17th Feat
18th
19th Feat
20th
Personally I think the system is fine and any granting of additional Feats or abilities to character will make it more of a munchkin fest then it already is.
I like that you outlined ways to make this balanced. I hate it when people come on here with unfinished ideas, and this one is neat, playtested, and you seem to have a wealth of opinion on it. Bravo.
Another alternative to granting more feats, without drastically altering power level's, or pushing the Wizard and Fighter farther apart is to incorporate the ability increase every four hit dice. Put simply, every three hit dice a character gains a feat, and every four hit dice he can increase his ability scores. Why not blur the line?
At the first, third, fourth, sixth, eight, ninth, twice on the twelfth, fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, and twentieth, I let my player's either increase an ability score or choose a feat. Their call, one or the other.
I also have a system for buying feats, but she's sorta in the shop while I refigure some XP costs for Metamagic and Heritage feats.
In core d20, a fighter has nineteen lifetime feats, versus another character's seven. Twenty and eight in the case of a human- more than twice the feats other characters get.
In your first, moderate variant, the fighter has twenty-two feats, versus another character's eleven- exactly twice. This remains playable.
In your second, the fighter has thirty-one feats to another's twenty. Now the ratio is 3:2, and there starts to be little point in playing a fighter.
A fighter playing under your third variant gets 38 feats to another character's 27- just 40% more. Now the fighter's edge is cut to virtually nothing.
This could be dealt with either by accelerating the fighter's bonus feat progression to match that of other characters', or more radically by making more feats fighter-only.
Level 1 - feat
Level 2 -
Level 3 - feat
Level 4 - feat
Level 5 -
Level 6 - feat
Level 7 -
Level 8 - feat
Level 9 - feat
Level 10 -
Level 11 -
Level 12 - feat
Level 13 -
Level 14 -
Level 15 - feat
Level 16 - feat
Level 17 -
Level 18 - feat
Level 19 -
Level 20 - feat
If you increase the base number of feats to 11, the fighter would get 22, giving him 2 times as many feats as a character of another class. This means he is only 78% as effective (relatively speaking) as a core fighter.
If you use the second option, the base number of feats is 20 and the fighter would get 31. He would then have 1.55 times as many feats as another character and be only 60% as effective (relatively) as a core fighter.
If you use the third option, the base number of feats is 27 and the fighter would get 38. This is 1.41 times as many feats as the other characters, making him only about 55% as effective (relatively) as a core fighter.
It's a decent way to make more powerful characters in a low-magic setting or to take away from the "treasure hunt" aspect of the game, but for it to work well for all the characters, you'd definitely have to give the fighters more bonus feats, or something else to compensate.
To address the problem with the fighter, it allows a straight 20 class fighter to master more fighting styles over their career than just the few that they normally have. Realize that at 20th level, the fighter would have 11 more feats than most characters (the exception being those classes that receive bonus feats). Also, the issue is lessened as there aren’t many players nowadays who are willing to go straight 20 class fighter, with all the PRCs out there.
The point is not to take away from the fighter or any other class, but to allow for more customization on the part of the player.
Of course, everyone can see the weakness in that, as the party would all be one hit kills with superpowered offence and good defence (defence not growing as fast as offence to counterbalance the accumulation on hp over levels).
So, if a model works for you, the question is never "power level," as that only tells you if you need to increase the encounter levels (or decrease them if, indeed, monsters are now being undervalued for their CR). Rather, you need to ask yourself if "more feats = more fun."
On the one hand, yes, it does mean that, as players enjoy having powerful characters. HOWEVER, the more powerful the characters, the more alike they become. The small classic party of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard consist of four weak characters, who together are strong. Each one is VERY distinct.
Take that into a high powered gestalt campaign with a Fighter/Cleric, a Cleric/Wizard, a Rogue/Sorcerer, and a Wizard/Barbarian. Where is the individuality? The Fighter can now buff and heal himself, the Cleric can now blow up the enemy, the Rogue can now buff and turn invisible on his own, and the Wizard can soak more damage than anyone else in the party. Individuality is lost.
Now, giving out multiple feats does the same thing (as has been mentioned by many posters here). It makes the characters each a little more independent, and thus, makes group play more about the self, and that is less fun for everyone. After all, group enjoyment is what D&D is about, not some sort of gratuitous self fulfillment in front of others.
So, if a character wants extra feats for reasons of character development, have them roleplay for them, and give them out with good cause, as I mentioned before. That way, you, as the DM have control not only on the power level of the game, but also on the individuality of the characters. Also, this gives you a use for all of those otherwise neglected cinematic and skill feats.
Although it IS possible to abuse this system, I find that I often want to take feats for character development purposes, not to stack them up and power game, but I can’t do it or I’ll never get into the prestige classes I want to take.
But on the subject of how this gimps the fighter – do all of you actually see a lot of people playing fighters through to 20th level? I’m playing a human fighter in a game now, and I took two flaws so I could get a couple of feats that are of very limited use, but that suit my character concept. When I talked to my DM about the character, he was shocked, because “Nobody ever plays a straight fighter.”
do all of you actually see a lot of people playing fighters through to 20th level? I’m playing a human fighter in a game now, and I took two flaws so I could get a couple of feats that are of very limited use, but that suit my character concept. When I talked to my DM about the character, he was shocked, because “Nobody ever plays a straight fighter.”
Finally, someone has mentioned the white elephant in the room. Honestly, how many people actually play fighters past 5th or 6th level nowadays anyway? If you're playing just the core rulebooks, ok, but if you're using much more than that, people won’t end up playing that fighter for very long anyway.
The few combat related feats I can think of off the top of my head that are useful are Weapon Finesse if you use a Dagger rather than a Staff, Point Blank shot and then Precise Shot for flinging all those ranged touch attacks into melee.
Sure you have the option of taking more metamagic feats but how many of us are going to be stacking still and silent spells EVERY battle to make our level 1 spells waste a 7th level slot?!? We save those for situations where they are the only way out for lack of a better description.
The only option I see is the PrC issue. Which can be remedied by imposing a level requirement equal to when you would normally be able to take the PrC according to standard feat acquisition. Although I can't think of many PrCs that don't have some sort of skill requirement by rank which enforces a 'soft' or unspoken level requirement already.