It shouldn't take a feat to perform an action
That's right, 3.5 is about options, so a fighter should be able to attempt a whirlwind attack at first level, a magician should be able to craft a metamagic spell without the feat, and a rogue should be able to cut an Achilles tendon without taking an ambush feat.
Feats tell you what is possible for that character, that means if they can take the feat they should be able to perform the action without the feat. and here is how.
Create a system that has the player making skill and ability checks to perform actions, apply modifiers to the roll, and if the player makes those checks let them do it. The feat enables them to do said ability without checks or negatives, but if you can take a feat to do something you should be able to do it without. I'll make three examples.
Example 1
A fighter is surrounded by five enemies and only has two attacks in a round, he would rather whirlwind attack then take his two attacks. He does not have the whirlwind attack as a feat.
So first look at whirlwind attack, it takes a certain number of feats, and a base attack bonus of a certain amount.
Ok so have the player roll a Dex check since to make a whirlwind attack takes quick reflexes or else everyone just avoids, the check determines how many can actually be hit by the whirlwind. lets say that the DC is 5+#of opponents to be hit. If he rolls a 10 or better he can hit every opponent. since it takes a certain BAB to get whirlwind attack, make him take a -1 for every 1 he is off to this check. If you don't think 1 for 1 is enough make it a -2 for every one.
He rolls an eleven on his Dex check, ok so now he makes his attack roll. Now we look at feat pre-reqs, lets say for every pre-req feat he takes a -4 to his attack roll. if he has none of the feats that's a large negative, but what if he has some of the feats, say dodge and mobility, then he doesn't take that -8 that would otherwise have been applied.
See easy-peasy, and once they've done it once or twice they can do most of the work up themselves and just tell you their checks.
Example 2
Ok next example... Metamagic feats. First off, this can't be done the same way since a metamagic feat has no pre-reqs, so rather look at what it takes.
A metamagic feat takes up a spell slot of a higher level, logic dictates that the higher the level increase, the more difficult the checks involved should be. So what kind of check you ask, well I think Spellcraft sounds like the perfect candidate don't you? if not pick your own, I'm going to use Spellcraft for my example.
When a player prepares (or casts for spontaneous casters) they can make a Spellcraft check to prepare it as metamagic. Let's set the base first, 10+spell level is a concurrent theme for magic so lets use that. Now we simply modify that DC based on the amount of levels increased lets say a +5 per spell level increased. so to make a magic missile a silent magic missile would take a DC 16 Spellcraft check, but a maximized magic missile would take a DC 36 Spellcraft check. Possible at higher levels, but still risky.
Now lets talk consequences of failure, with combat actions that's usually easy, the attack misses or the damage for ambush feats was subtracted but the extra effect didn't take place. But with metamagic it's a little more difficult. I don't think it should be that the spell is lost, that's too harsh and if I was a player I'd never risk it, rather lets say if the check fails the spell still takes up its higher level slot, but has no variable effect. That is enough of a risk to keep players from willy nilly attempting every time they prepare, but not so great a risk that they never want to try.
Now what if they want to apply to feats to one spell, lets say a silent stilled magic missile. Instead of giving them two low DC checks lets make it one check where you apply all level increase modifiers. Therefore, a silent stilled magic missile is a DC 21 check instead of two DC 16 checks. Now what if they have silent spell feat, well then you have a DC 16 check once again in order to make a silent stilled spell and no check at all to make a silent spell.
Example 3
Lets take flying kick. this one has skill requirements so it tells you right in the prerequisites what checks it takes to make the maneuver.
Lets see, it has jump 5 ranks and tumble 5 ranks as its prerequisites. So then If a player wants to make a flying kick but doesn't have the feat then they need to make a jump and tumble check. now what are the DCs of those checks. To me a feat represents training that allows you to take 10 on the checks involved without negatives even if normally you aren't allowed to take ten, so the if a player can always do this as part of a charge then when charging if the player makes a DC15 jump check followed by a DC 15 tumble check then they've flying kicked.
If they fail the jump check they fall prone and lose the attack, if they pass their jump check but fail their tumble check, they pull off the attack with the extra damage, but then they wind up prone in the square they would have ended their movement in and provoke an AoO.
These were merely examples of how I would do it and it doesn't begin to cover the eight billion feats spread out between the various splat books. I don't actually have any of my books with me so if I'm wrong about the pre-reqs or effects in my examples it's not really important. this wasn't about giving you a system for those specific feats, rather about showing you how to approach letting players attempt things that feats allow without having the feat. This gives players a lot of options and opens up possibilities for classes that may have been somewhat limited in scope. If you didn't like how I did it feel free to create your own system and post it here, but the point is let your players try more than just full attack and magic missile because I'm waiting to get the feat.
If feats are not mandatory anymore to do something, then what happens if you don't have the feat? In the case of Track, for example, you could apply a penalty to all Survival checks made to follow tracks. In the case of Power Attack, you could inflict an additional -1 penalty to every Power Attack made without the feat. But you'd have to set rules for EVERY SINGLE FEAT that you want to "remove". If you're willing to do so, go ahead. It's a lot of work for an interesting idea that won't change much to the game.
Nevertheless, the impact of feats WILL be lessened if they are not mandatory for trying the effect they normally grant automatically. And that's harsh on the poor fighter, whose bonus feats are the only class feature they get.
A lvl 1 wizard has enough arcane power to cast a few spells. You mean to tell me he can already manipulate the wave to maximize empower his spells?
Feats means things you learned. Why kick out that system? You start with knowing ... every trick in the book? I personally like the system.
very simple things (fighting defensively) <-> training (combat expertise)
On the other hand ... make some solid generic rules, and I'll check it out again.
and be very aware of powerplay ...
Firstly, I agree with the others that it needs to be much more simple and generic before it's likely to appeal to many people. Possibly base it on the -4 penalty for using weapons you're not proficient in. Maybe -4 to your attack/ check/ whatever for not having the feat, and a further -4 for every prerequisite you don't meet?
Secondly, since many feats make no sense to emulate with this method (Toughness, for instance) it devalues feats which give new abilities compared to those which just give straight bonuses to existing abilities.
It's also GREAT for supplements. You publish your new feat and you simultaneously get a new action for everyone in the game, plus mastery for the few who take the feat.
For a very flavorful/colorful addition, I'd allow an optional rule that states that a character must have successfully performed the action before he take take the feat. You want whirlwind attack? You better practice it!
BigGus is right about Toughness and other Buffness feats that just give a flat, one-time boost to an ability...
You'd write these feats just as before with a Benefit and Normal heading. Ex:
Whirlwind Attack
Benefit: as before
Normal: Without the feat, a character may strike any opponent within 5', but takes a penalty on his attack roll equal to twice the level of the highest opponent. (That way it's an ability that's useful untrained at low levels or against monsters that are well below your EL, but not very useful at mid- to high-level play.)
If you're playing a burly barbarians who wants to tackle a scrawny opponent during combat for some reason, the DM doesn't have to make up rules on the fly - he simply looks at the grapple rules. That's good and bad. Obviously, it is nice to have clear-cut rules for grappling, but if you don't have the feat Improved Grapple, then forget it. Even in this scenario, chances are you won't you won't success in anything other than wasting your turn without the proper feat/s.
What that means is the feat Improved Grapple is for all practical purposes forcing a player to take a feat to do something. That limits player options and means you can't play "free form" role-playing as easily.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the original poster's strategy, but I would like to see the rules opened up just a bit. I realize you're walking a fine line between too many rules and too few, but I'm just a gamer - not a gamer design
It's also a GREAT idea for supplements. You publish your feat and you give every player in the game a new action, plus a major benefit to those who choose to specialize in it. It wouldn't be significantly different than the current feats. You'd have a Normal and Benefit heading, just like most do now.
Example:
Whirlwind Attack
Benefit: as the SRD
Normal: A character without the feat may use the full attack action to make one melee attack at each opponent within reach, but at a penalty equal to the highest opponent's level x 2. (This way the maneuver is good at low levels, when the penalty is likely to be -2 or -4 and always useful against enemies far below your level, but ineffective against mid- to high-level opponents. If you want to Whirlwind against competent enemies, take the feat.)
I think you're missing the very definition of the word "feat."
Feat
Pronunciation: \ˈfēt\
Function: noun
a: a deed notable especially for courage
b: an act or product of skill, endurance, or ingenuity
Synonyms: feat, exploit, achievement: a remarkable deed
As in, "That man performed a feat of strength by pulling an airplane across a runway." As mentioned above, a feat is something noteworthy, remarkable, and a product of skill. I'm sure the man mentioned in my example didn't start his career as a strong-man capable of pulling an airplane, but having practiced and gained experience in his craft, can now do it on a regular basis.
Likewise, a first level fighter can't do a whirlwind attack, not because he doesn't have the feat, but because he hasn't practiced it enough to be able to perform it properly. He can sure attempt it, but likely he'd end up hurting himself more than his enemies.
I do see your dilemma though. Like turning 18 and legally becoming an "adult," why is there this magic number that suddenly makes you capable of doing something? To solve this problem, my DM made a house rule for our group. The rule is that everyone has to select their feats one level in advance, and can actually begin using that feat one level early, if they succeed on a check based on one of the six attributes. The check gets easier as you move through that level and there are consequences for failure, but if you succeed you can perform the feat that one time. When you level up, you get the feat and can use it normally. I think this not only bridges the gap between levels, but also adds a lot to character development in that it shows your character beginning to practice a new technique or maneuver and finally perfecting it. I've actually played in two separate groups that use variations of this house rule.
And when everyone is the same, and capable of the same thing, everyone is special. Which is just another way of saying no one is.
I like the feats the way they are, and they allow for interesting things, like wizards taking point blank shot, or weapon focus (ray). I'd rather everyone be different.
I already say "sure you can do that, but without special training you don't gain a mechanical advantage."
So that level one fighter can lash out heroically at everything around him, but he just doesn't have the training required (Whirlwind Attack) to make that effective.
Giving the effect an appropriate skill / BAB penalty will help to keep the effects best suited to the classes with a lot of skill points or a full BAB (so a non-Fighter might find it unproductive to use a Power Attack action in most situations, since they can't afford the hit to BAB).
Alternately, perhaps only certain classes would get access to advanced options (must have Skill X as a class skill to be able to use it thusly, most have full BAB to be able to use the Power Attack option, or the Accurate Attack option, which would allow the Fighter to sacrifice damage for extra Accuracy, or some similar variants).
A third way to balance it would be to have the trade offs vary between classes. A Wizard or Cleric might be able to take the Power Attack option, but he'd have to expend 3 points of BAB for each +2 to damage, while a Paladin, Ranger or Monk would be able to make a 1 for 1 trade off, and a Fighter would be able to swap out points at an even more advantageous ratio, like 2 BAB for 3 extra damage.
Others would similarly balance themselves. A straight Rogue is going to have more Sneak Attack dice than a Blackguard, so he'll have more options for trying for sneaky blows that hamstring, blind, daze, ability damage, nauseate or otherwise slap a temporary Condition on his target, instead of just adding dice of damage.
I love Feats, but there are *way* too many of them, and a huge number of them represent things that any Fighter (in the case of Power Attack or Cleave or Two-Weapon Fighting), Rogue (in the case of Ambush feats) or Arcanist (in the case of basic Metamagics) should be able to attempt.
Example: The hobbits in the LOTR movies. By the end, a few of them were somewhat competent fighters, let's say level 4. At least, that's my viewpoint of the power level at 4. Can you imagine one of them having the ability to effectively slash everyone around them? They were just catching the basics of swordplay!
Here's the thing: Modern, first world humans have tons of innate knowledge we just pick up from life. We know what a flying kick looks like because we watched Jackie Chan and the Ninja Turtles do it. If you've never seen a television, you simply wouldn't think about leaping into the air like that. Same concept applies here: if you've never seen or practiced it, you can't perform it.
For a very flavorful/colorful addition, I'd allow an optional rule that states that a character must have successfully performed the action before he take take the feat. You want whirlwind attack? You better practice it!
I think it's funny that you just nailed the reason I developed this article in the first place in one go. It always felt foolish to me that in the game training was shoved into the background, (it's assumed you do it when no one is looking). I figured this was an encouragement for my players to actually try the maneuvers they get once in awhile instead of the *Ping* my character hit level 6 and I took the jump kick feat, I jump kick the ogre, despite never having talked about or even attempted jump kicking. This way if he wants to, when he gets close to getting all the pre-reqs he can start attempting the trick and when he takes the feat there's a little more verisimilitude than *oh I've been training to do this for months, didn't you notice?*
On a separate note this also helps for higher level specialized characters to do more than just the same thing over and over, yeah they're really good at that one thing, but really they can never try anything else because of their specialization. Now the trip monkey fighter can now do something other than just trip at high level which makes sense, because no matter how specialized when you get those higher levels you should be able to pick up other maneuvers that you've seen done, granted you're not as good as that guy you had seen do it, but you can do it effectively to get by.
Oh and about flat bonus feats (on my final separate note), I didn't think those needed to be applied to this, I think those are just things you have to take since those aren't really a maneuver but more an aspect of a character. Plus this will actually maybe have players taking the occasional skill boosting feat that otherwise usually get ignored.
I do see your dilemma though. Like turning 18 and legally becoming an "adult," why is there this magic number that suddenly makes you capable of doing something? To solve this problem, my DM made a house rule for our group. The rule is that everyone has to select their feats one level in advance, and can actually begin using that feat one level early, if they succeed on a check based on one of the six attributes. The check gets easier as you move through that level and there are consequences for failure, but if you succeed you can perform the feat that one time. When you level up, you get the feat and can use it normally. I think this not only bridges the gap between levels, but also adds a lot to character development in that it shows your character beginning to practice a new technique or maneuver and finally perfecting it. I've actually played in two separate groups that use variations of this house rule.
I really like this idea.
You can try it with a big penalty that becomes progressivelly lower (either as you progress through the level or maybe every time you succeed).
The only problem that I can see is that it forces the players to make his decision earlier. But even that is not a big deal.
Or maybe another variant when the character pick up his feat first at the normal level and THEN becomes more and more proficient as he performs it.
In fact it could also be adapted for when new spells are learned (at least arcane spells; cleric spells being granted by a divinity may be different matter)
I think it's funny that you just nailed the reason I developed this article in the first place in one go. It always felt foolish to me that in the game training was shoved into the background, (it's assumed you do it when no one is looking). I figured this was an encouragement for my players to actually try the maneuvers they get once in awhile instead of the *Ping* my character hit level 6 and I took the jump kick feat, I jump kick the ogre, despite never having talked about or even attempted jump kicking. This way if he wants to, when he gets close to getting all the pre-reqs he can start attempting the trick and when he takes the feat there's a little more verisimilitude than *oh I've been training to do this for months, didn't you notice?*
On a separate note this also helps for higher level specialized characters to do more than just the same thing over and over, yeah they're really good at that one thing, but really they can never try anything else because of their specialization. Now the trip monkey fighter can now do something other than just trip at high level which makes sense, because no matter how specialized when you get those higher levels you should be able to pick up other maneuvers that you've seen done, granted you're not as good as that guy you had seen do it, but you can do it effectively to get by.
Oh and about flat bonus feats (on my final separate note), I didn't think those needed to be applied to this, I think those are just things you have to take since those aren't really a maneuver but more an aspect of a character. Plus this will actually maybe have players taking the occasional skill boosting feat that otherwise usually get ignored.
Personally, I think this is brilliant. the only trick is laying the ground work.
Likely, each feat's "normal" houserule would be added as demand for it arises... i.e. if nobody tries to pull off a feat-less whirlwind attack, a houserule for it may never make it in the game.
Also note that the Core books imply that the DM needs no justification to invent feats for his gaming table. Why not also mod the existing ones by making a "Normal" text entry for the ones without?
The whole problem of feats being required to do certain things which I think anyone could try is a problem that had become invisible to me since I've become used to it.