[D&D] Feats, not enough?

[Xaden]

Okay, I've been pondering if I should post this thought or not, and I have decided to post it. It's just been floating around in my brain and this is a cool place to let out such thoughts (even if many of you might not agree with me).

So who feels that D&D doesn't give out enough feats? I'm not even sure WotC feel that they have. Have you seen some of the later D&D incarnations? Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved (I know, just to the left of D&D, but I think still applicable) has most of his classes with built-in bonus feats not to mention an extra feat at first level (even if it is slightly restricted in what you can take) and then there's D20 modern, where every core class and every prestige class has bonus feats (and often many of them).

I mean, the average character in D&D gets about 7 feats throughout 20 levels! Sure, wizards and fighters get some extra, but that's about it. And how long does it take you to get 20 levels? I was playing with a group in NJ where I used to live for about 5 or 6 years, started with first level characters and we got up to level 16 (or maybe 17). So five years of gaming and I can get 6 feats. That's about a foot a year! And now lets look at the awesome power of feats.
Dodge: +1 to AC against that guy!
Weapon Focus: +1 to attacks with this weapon!
Endurance: (maybe I've just been playing the wrong games, but I have found this feat to be almost useless)

Okay, now I admit to picking on some of the only mildly useful feats. Things like Whirlwind Attack, and (used strategically) Spring Attack are very useful feats, but many of the more useful feats require several other feats to obtain, and that's just my point! And I fairly often find that to make almost any class good there are a handful of feats that you more-or-less need to take just to make them good, which means the customization of classes that feats are supposed to bring about is kind of lost. You need a decent amount of feats for the feats to be meaningful and a decent amount so that you can buy the ones you need and still have a handful left over to add flavor to your character.

There are certain feats within the game that are nice little feats that add flavor, but often when you choose flavor over practicality you character starts to suffer. For example, say you want to play a purely sorcerer character, a powerful spellcaster, but to add a little spice to her you want her to fight with warfans and two of them (okay, maybe that's a little more than just spice). You now have to give up 2 years of your character's life (out of game, that is), just to do that, and how often is your sorcerer going to find herself in combat where these feats would be useful? Probably not very often, but in addition to that loss, you have now NOT taken other feats that might be more useful to your character such as metamagic feats or item creation feats. Now, not only have you spent two years out of game just to make your wizard different and more unique, adding the flavor feats are supposed to, but you have also really stunted her development, and it'll be another year before you can pick up her development again.

Was it really worth adding that extra uniqueness to her? Maybe you were just better off playing the bland and booring uber-wizard. But that's not the point of feats. They are there to add flavor and make your character something more than just the ordinary, but unfortunetly when you do that with the game as it is now, you really just stunt your character.

When I first stumbled across feats going from 2nd ed. to 3rd, I was floored! I loved feats! I thought they were a great addition to the game, and then I saw how few you got. Suddenly fighter became my most favorite class and only because of the feats. I love spellcasters. I'm constantly thinking up of new ones, and how to make them unique (we know the traditional, power-hungry ones, we've all seen them (Rastlin? Is that you?) even if it wasn't in that incarnation) and break away from the traditional, but more and more often I found myself (in the beginning) leaning towards fighters just for the feats (sure, wizards got a couple extra, but...)

So what it came down to was that when I started DMing I gave my characters more feats. Two at first level and an additional one every even level (humans still get the extra one, and fighters still get their mighty array of feats). All of a sudden characters were becomming more and more unique. The personality and uniqueness of each of the characters started comming out, not just through role-playing, but through the rules themselves. I liked that, I like it when the system encourages more role-playing (and a system can encourage or discourage role-playing), and when role-playing can be expressed through the system. Like, is it just me, or is that how RPG systems should work? And that is why I give extra feats when I DM.

So what do you people think? Do you disagree? Do you think feats (and the amounts that you get) are good enough? Do you think I'm just a munchkin in disguise? (I know some of you are thinking it). So I just thought I'd throw that out there. Have phun peeps!

[Benicus]

I disagree that it takes YEARS to get a level, ive been playing in my friends Shackled City for two weeks and now im almost level 5. Either you barely had fights/DM was nit pickey about roleplaying exp, or something was up. I dont think it takes that long, you just need to pick up the hints and follow um through. Dont immediatly go off to a northern sea adventure when someone just promised you 90000gp to clear out a dragons roost (just an example).

I personally love feats, their awsome. Thats why I love flaws as well, I mean you get an extra feat/flavor and more flavor with the flaw! How cool is that?

BTW Flaws DO NOT replace the fighter class, sure you can take some but in all honesty whos gonna win a fighter who naturally gets his feats or someone with 20+ flaws AND feats. The flaws hurt you and help you but it adds flavor both ways.

Just my two cents.

[LeadPal]

Flaws do help, true, adding two more feats at 1st level at a price that is, in itself, great flavour. I mean, how can you not want to play an anorexic insomniac necromancer? Or a clumsy unathletic psion?

Personally, I have no problem, since their are other ways to pull off all your flavourful tricks that don't involve feats. For your example, I'd just let the sorcerer fumble about with the warfans nonproficiently. Yeah, I'd probably end up with an attack bonus of like -7 (-11 in the off-hand!), but it would look so cool! If I actually wanted to be good with them, anyways, I've got the wrong class, or at least the wrong classes; I'd take a level of fighter and then jump into eldritch knight. If that's not good enough, then you are a munchkin. :\

[Kylos]

I agree with Xaden. In most of the games I DM, I speed up feats a little bit - one every even-numbered level. Not a vast improvement, but there's room for customization there. (And fighters get the novelty of a feat every level.) I'm also 100% pro-flaws.

Of course, I'm also a fan of high-powered campaigns, including 42 point-buy, gestalting, and eliminating experience penalties for multiclassing, so I guess I can't say much.

[Linklegacy77]

I actually think that the feat progression should stay the way it is. It is easy enough as it is to break the game, why make it easier?

[LynMars]

More feats? What?

Most of them don't do much beyond "Have a +2 in a skill you need, and a skill that's most likely cross-classed anyway". At about 9th-12th level, I'm sitting there thinking "Meh! I don't want these, don't need these...hand me a supplement, let's see...Oh, let's take something fun..." And that's -not- playing a fighter.

Granted, I tend to be unable to purposely twink unless I work real hard and get outside help at it. With the wide variety of feats there are, there's plenty of customization.

Also really depends on how you run your game to determine "worthless" feats or not, much like skills. I know in one of my GMs games, lotsa knowledge skills are needed. In another, Listen/Spot are more of a necessity than they already are.

As Link said, the game is already really easily broken. Adding more feats/faster progression lets you break it even faster and harder.

[hedgeknight]

Not enough feats? Are you kidding? There are a zillion of 'em and like everything else some are better than others.
And I disagree with giving out feats more often than listed - that's just gonna make your character more powerful sooner and spoil the game.
Just my 2 cents.
-g-

[Xaden]

Well, I see I'm fighting a losing battle here, though I'm glad to have one supporter. By the way Kylos, next time you start up a game I'd love to join, if at all possible, especially since I've always wanted to try out gestalting characters (that seemed really interesting and really dynamic when I first read about it).

But back ot the main topic. It seems that many of you feel that feats are something that can really break the game, that they're just too powerful to give out more than what is already there, and I don't think that that's the case. Don't get me wrong, feats can be useful and helpful, but if I somehow lose control of a game I'm DMing, it's not because the rogue has both Spring Attack AND Precise Shot by 8th level.

Feats are nice and they do help add flavor but not with so few. When you have so few, it seem like to me you just have certain ones you have to pick just to make your character okay. As it is, for example the wizard pretty much has to stick to metamagic and item creation feats just to be decent and if he tries to branch out, his development slows significantly and there's just a huge loss of forward momentum. But aside from that, there's just the fact that every wizard comes out as one of like three types (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea), and that's not the point of feats. Feats were supposed to make a character more unique than others of their kind; instead there are just like three different types of each class and not a truly wide variety of each.

It's part of the reason why I think so many new "core classes" are comming out now. I own a fairly large amount of D&D supplementary books and (not including Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved) I have access to at least 27 more core classes than what's in the PHB. You add to that number the 11 from the PHB and that's 38 core classes (and I know I'm not counting some others in that count, like Complete Psionic (which was a recent acquisition and therefore not included in my count, though it does have more core classes) and probably other books). I think designers have felt the need for this is because there is not enough custimizability and individualization going on within the original 11 classes from the PHB (alright, Psionics needed their own classes as well, but still) and so they created more core classes. But if more feats were given out, you could more easily break out of the traditional... binding straight-jackets that the core classes currently represent (I'm using a little poetic license here).

But I'm sticking to my guns here! I still feel that giving a couple of extra feats doesn't truly throws off the balance of the game (though I do also give the monsters extra feats as well), and that they truly enhance character custimization and development. I know, I haven't really touched much upon flaws, and I think they are good, but they have their flaws (some pun intended), for one, you can only take them only at first level (which means that if later on you want another feat, they don't really help and if a feat requires some prerequisites that you can't have at first level, they don't help you get those either), and for another, there are just so few (if there were more, I'd probably like them more), but by-and-large, I don't care too much for them.

PS: If you haven't noticed, sometimes I go a little over the top, but it's just to make a point. It's like when I explain to a newbie why size affects hitting and AC. It's easier to show the point by compairing a mouse to an elephant, then by compairing an elf to a halfling (to an mouse an elephant is VERY big and therefore easier to hit and to an elephant a mouse is VERY small and therefore much harder to hit, throw-in gradations, set human (medium) size as the base-line and blamo! Size affects attacks and AC). So by exaggerating some points, I think the points I'm trying to make become much clearer (though still valid). So yeah, have phun and enjoy gaming (even if you don't agree with me). Oh, and feel free to comment some more.:D

[treehouse]

Ahem - Iron Heroes already does this. Two feats at first level, one every even-numbered level.

I talk about Iron Heroes too much, don't I?:)

I'm also a big fan of the high-powered game. I think this would be a significant boost in power, but not totally broken, either. The average character, assuming no bonus feats from class or race, goes from getting 7 feats to 12 by the end of the game. Assuming EVERYONE got this (NPCs and monsters included), everything would harmonize, though there'd be some rough spots.

Go for it.

[Xaden]

I clearly need this Iron Heroes, but that just help reinforce my first argument in my first post for this, more D20 game are comming out with more feats for the characters and I truly think it's because they feel that they just didn't give enough to begin with (why else would all these games have more feats than what's given in the PHB? (Other than the obvious fact that these are different core classes than what's in the PHB :fun: )). I guess I got myself there, sort-of, but I still think it's a valid argument! LOL

[treehouse]

Well, Iron Heroes has very little magic, so the core classes are much, much stronger than D&D classes to make up for that gap. Same deal in Spycraft 2.0, where nearly every base class gets crap loads of bonus feats.

I still think your original idea would be fine, though. More feats can't really unbalance a game all that much if everyone gets them.

[LeadPal]

Yeah, it wouldn't be as terribly unbalanced as some others would say, I think, although I'd up the feat requirements for the average prestige class.

But, ah... did you see my above post on why you don't need feats anyways? :worry:

[Xaden]

Yes, I did see your post on why you don't need feats anyway and I thought that was a good point, except that, in the example used above with the sorcerer fighting with two warfans, if they're eating these big penalties to using the warfans (-8 primary, -12 off hand) I think they'd look anything but impressive. While numbers in D&D have some tendency to lose meaning, I think penalties like that mean you're pretty horrible when doing that. And while there's an interesting character concept right there (the sorcerer who thinks he can fight with two warfans, but really can't) that's kind of just to the left of my point (though still pretty amusing)! While my main point is that I feel he should be able to do that well and still not suffer to much in his development. But you still make a valid point (since he won't be fighting much anyways since he is exclusively a sorcerer). Though now I am thinking up an interesting character...:worry:

[Xaden]

That's also a good point on upping feat requirements for prestige classes LeadPal (I never thought of that one).

[LynMars]

d20 Modern gives out feats like candy--all the base classes get their own set of bonus feats they get every other level, with class skills, and the normal feats. But, there's not nearly as much magic (if any) in Modern, either.

Also, when talking about all those core classes, are you counting things for specific settings, and rewrites of the d20 rules (like Accordlands or L5R or...) or actual "Dungeons and Dragons" supplements, printed by WoTC and not $random_gaming_company_jumping_on_the_d20_bandwago n?

[Xaden]

By other core classes I'm talking about things from the "Complete" series (warrior, arcane, etc.), Expanded Psionics Handbook, Path of Shadow, Path of the Sword, Path of Magic, Cityworks. So yes, some of them are from Legends and Lairs but each of the "Complete" series books has 3 new core classes each so that's 15 more core classes right there (and if those aren't legit books, I don't know what are). So that's not including things for specific settings.

[Xaden]

But I'm starting to see that my arguments for new books giving more feats to the classes is fairly weak (since both Iron Heroes and D20 modern have less (if any) magic). Though Monte Cook, who created Arcana Evolved, does have plently of magic (and done in a fairly cool and new way) and a fair number of extra feats for his classes (though that's a pretty different setting from D&D, even though it's still using the D20 system and still set in a midevil fantasy world).

[LeadPal]

Yeah, and there are more official core classes yet, in the Minis Handbook, Heroes of Horror, and PHBII, and probably more that escape me at the moment. Savage Species, too, has dozens of progressions, although monster classes aren't really the same thing...

Although the sorcerer mentioned would indeed be incompetent with the warfans, keep in mind that many actors can't really wield any of their weapons in the movies (though exceptions abound). Yet I've rarely found myself bothered by an actor's improper battle stance right before their stunt double takes over the battle. Looks perfectly badass to me, just them holding their weapon.

Besides, CV has the spell Master's Touch, granting free proficiency with one weapon, CA features the Skillful weapon property, which does that and gives an increased BAB, and the even the PHB has Tenser's Transformation, which although highly penalizing is pretty good for turning a mage into a tank. You could even consider the Perform (weapon drill) skill in CW, which could be a decent stopgap measure for at least looking skillful when whipping those fans around. Lots of ways to make up the difference.

Besides, of all characters, mages need feats the very least, since metamagic and item creation have their additional penalties (increased spell level and XP lost). You wouldn't be that bad off.

Actually, something occured to me shortly after I said it wouldn't be that unbalanced. You're raising the bar for everyone by granting more feats. If you use your extra feats to take all those useless things that add flavour, you're still behind the guy who spends every last one of those things on optimal choices. Rather than just taking Greater Spell Focus in one school, I know I'd take it in a few...

[AbusePuppy]

I think the problem is only partly that characters don't get many feats; obviously, that limits character customizability (which is dependant on feats, items and prestige class and thus comparatively minor); the other problem is that feats simply do not compare to spells. It's been pointed out many times that spellcasters are powerful, but that's not an inherent quality of magic- it's an issue of the balance between magical abilities (and supernatural, and spell-like, and so forth) and the non-magical ones gained via feats and class levels.

Compare a "good" starting feat like Weapon Focus to a "good" starting spell like Magic Missile or Shield; they're roughly on the same level. Combat in D&D tends to be short and bloody when magic is involved, since spells generally deal enough damage to kill a target in 3-5 rounds, even assuming some successful saves. Physical classes, on the other hand, deal much less damage, but at low levels that's not an issue- the goblin dies in two hits whether they're Magic Missile or a broadsword. As the game progresses, however, magic continues scaling in damage while physical attacks do not. A 10th level mage averages 30+ damage a round casting basic attack spells while a warrior is only getting a couple swings at d12+8 or so- and those can easily miss against any kind of reasonable CR challenge. The reason is that the fighter's extra feats simply do not increase his overall damage very much- looking at the Focus/Specialization chain a 20th level warrior is only +2/+4 above a 1st level schmuck. Even Improved Critical, Power Attack, etc, only add a limited amount (remember, against an equal CR challenge you can't afford to sacrifice more than three or four BAB and still hope to hit). The end result is that physical damage does not scale effectively because the feats involved have such minor bonuses.

I think improving the feats would go a long ways towards balancing out some of the issues with D&D, although some of the other classes would need improved abilities as well (ranger/paladin/rogue/etc). A simpler solution might be to weaken magic spells, although this lowers the overall power level of the game noticably and means that monsters and experience awards have to be altered to compensate. As has been said, tweaking any aspect of the game can affect dozens of other things; do so only at the risk of severely unbalancing your campaign.
__________________
"It looks just like an ordinary duck."
"To get the full effect you have to go into the Glow-in-the-Dark Duck viewing room."
"Quack."
"Ooh!"
"Wow!"
"'It looks just like an ordinary duck,' Ryan."
"Girls never understand."

[Xaden]

Now it's true, as LeadPal stated, that you can fake skill without truly having it (like in the case of actors who look impressive on the screen, but don't neccessarily know anything about whatever they're faking), but I'm not saying that the sorcerer should have to fake it, I'm saying that they should be able to do it and without hurting their development.

This idea also applies to the idea of using spells to not just look good with the warfans, but to also be good with them. When the sorcerer picks Master's Touch then he does not get some other spell to know, and with sorcerers, since they only know so few spells at each level (at most 5 for any spell level higher than 0th and that's only at 11th level that they get it for 1st and 2nd level spells) knowing the right ones really matters (and picking the wrong ones really hurts). And Tensor's Transformation, while a powerful spell, means that the sorcerer has to give up other powerful spells in it's stead, such as Flesh to Stone, Disintegrate, or Chain Lightning (I love that one!). Also, as was mentioned Tensor's Transformation comes with its own limitations (even above and beyond the material component, which is fairly noteworthy (a potion of Bull's Strength)). Then there's the slightly less important fact that these spells are fleeting (though usually long enough to last a fight, hence why that point is less important). And then there's the fact that the sorcerer example is just one of many.

Take a rogue who's concept is he's one fast Mother****er, and he eventually wants to be able to catch and expertly throw back projectiles shot at him (a rather slick idea for a cool rogue and one that I think should be possible). Now he needs Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot (let's face it, a NEED for anyone who focuses on ranged attacks), Far Shot, (also an important feat for a thrower), Quick Draw (so that he can throw more than one thing a round with higher BABs (are you really that slick if you're throwing one dagger a round at level 20? I don't think so)). That's 7 feats right there for that concept, and it doesn't include things like Rapid Shot (also appropriate), Weapon Finesse (if this guy really is one fast Mother****er, there's a decent chance he doesn't have to high a strength (or at least probably not as high as Dexterity)) and without Finesse even with a light weapon if you catch him in close combat he's in some trouble (and a guy who's that fast that cannot be fast with a dagger in melee doesn't sit to well with this concept).

So provided he just got the 7 feats he needs for his concept he never reaches that level of coolosity until level 18 (provided he doesn't give up any of his rogue special abilities for feats (and lets face it, those special abilities rock!)), and until that point he's never quite even close to that uber. Let's say he gets Imp. Unarmed Strike (lvl 1), Deflect (lvl 3), Snatch (lvl 6), Point Blank (lvl 9), Precise (lvl 12), Quick Draw (lvl 15), Far Shot (lvl 18). Okay, by level 6 he's catching missiles, pretty cool, but until level 12 he's throwing into melee with a -4 to hit (so he stands back, throws stuph, and doesn't do it well until level 12th level!), he's throwing 1 missile a round until level 15! And until 18 he's prabably eating some fairly decent penalties for ranged attacks. You could advance him with the same feats several other ways, but it'd still be a while before he was uber enough. Maybe you say he could take some levels of monk (that would definetly help), but what if monastic training doesn't fit with the character concept (he's a lone wolf, who learned street braawling and due to often knives in the back, learned to catch those little buggers, and he just holds no respect for that formal poop!), maybe some levels of fighter but again that implies a certain amount of formal training. But all these branching out concepts means he's likely to eat an XP penalty unless he's a halfling (and what if the player wants to play a half-elf, or he just doesn't think a halfling fits this concept well?) And then there's still that fact that he can't do anything else (like weapon finesse).

I could come up with examples like these till the cows come home, so what I'm trying to express here is that the specific examples are not the main thing. It doesn't matter specifically about the sorcerer, or now the rogue, or some cleric example I haven't yet come up with or some bard example I'm now formulating, what matters is that these sorts of character concepts should be possible (I admit, just in my own opinion, but that's part of what this website is about, expressing opinions and getting feedback :) ) and yes I feel they should take time, but not as much time as is needed with the system as it currently is with its strict rationing of feats, and not neccissarily to the exclusion of advancing ANYTHING else. I'm realizing that this is porbably the main point that is causing the most amount of disagreement in this thread (except by a select few), but I'm trying here *shrug*.

So I guess to reiterate the main point I'm trying to make, is that these character concepts should be possible and achievable without crippling your character's development (and while the rogue does get to be cool eventually, there is a fair amount of crippling going on there until then: He's never very exceptional at melee (no special melee feats except improved unarmed strike (1d3 damage in melee, big whoop!), and can't make multiple ranged attacks until level 15 (that's a whopper!)). Yeah, as a rogue he'll have many skills and that will be helpful to a group, most likely, but when the shit hits the fan in combat, he pretty much needs to use his skills to hide and wait for the tide to roll over (and pray his side won!). He could have bought other immediatley useful feats like Weapon Finesse and Spiked Chain Proficiency but then he's no where near his character concept. Like that he's pretty cool, don't get me wrong, but his original character concept was cool as well, but now completely abandoned do to the almost insurmountable difficulties of achieving it.

LeadPal made another good point of focusing a character with the extra feats instead of adding flavor, but realize that adding flavor isn't always going to be just "fluff". Using the example of the sorcerer again (I know, I said specific examples isn't the main point, but using them helps bring out the main point), if he and his group ran into a critter with Spell Resistance, the feats Two Weapon Fighting and Warfan Proficiency would greatly help, since spells are less likely to affect the critter. With a little Mage Armor or just some armor-boosting magic items (or maybe more importantly health boosting items like an Amulet of Health (Con +4) or something) the sorcerer could lend at least some additional aid to the group, while a sorcerer who focused on metamagic, item creation, or Greater Spell Focus type things wouldn't be able to help quite as much. True enough, with the extra feats you might have bought Spell Penetration and the like, but depending upon the SR of the critter, that might not even help too much. The main point here is that a focused character can be brought down in power a bit easier than one who's less focused (what I'm trying to say here is that there's a trade-off between focusing and branching out, each with their own merits).

[LeadPal]

Now I don't agree with you at all. A sorcerer who is good at both magic and fighting, with no real tradeoffs, is simply overpowered and unfair. If you want to do it, either wait until level 30 or so, or take levels in fighter and eldritch knight. Changing the system to do it is munchkinry, really. Likewise, a supercool mofo rogue is probably epic level, and should not be possible until then.

If you want more power faster (and this is your goal, since in every case thus far more power=more flavour), give out more experience, or play in higher-level campaigns. Giving everybody enough feats to do everything at low level is not the answer.

[Linklegacy77]

Leadpal hit the nail on the head. Instead of screwing around with the system, just play higher level games.

[Xaden]

The thing is I don't feel you should have to play higher level games to attain these levels of diversity and richness. Why can't your character have some potnetial for greatness at the lower levels? Why is it that this sort of class diversity can only be obtained at epic levels? Then there's also the fact that getting up to epic level takes a long time. Sure, you can start at higher levels so you can already have the sort of diversity that a handful of feats grants, but I find a lot of fun in starting off at the begining and building up from there. Unfortunetly, as I'm pointing out in these examples, you can't have this sort of diversity without truly limiting your character until like level 20 and I don't think that should be the case.

I suppose it's always possible that I am a little munchkiny (it really wouldn't surprise me), but I'm not sure it's because I want more feats to create greater character diversity at slightly lower levels. I have yet to find that the extra feats I hand out really unbalance the game (and I have played several games with the extra feats that I suggest here) and I've found that I myself, and the players have a lot of fun and I do see greater diversity and more character development with the extra feats. When you actually have the feats to grab up a couple extra things outside of class needs, suddenly a greater richness comes out in the characters, but when feats are handed in such limited numbers you're almost straight-jacketed into certain feat choices. With so few feats, they should almost be handed out like the Monk's bonus feats are handed out (now at this level you get either this feat or that feat, okay now at this level you have these two choices) and then there's less diversity of characters. There ends up being the rogue on the melee chian, and the rogue on the ranged chain and NO rogue on the snatching missiles and using them chain (because it's just to unfeasable).

I my opinion, the severe drought of feats really limits character diversity and I just don't think that should be the case, or rather, that there should be character diversity throughout all the levels (and not just at the levels approaching 20th where you FINALLY have enough feats to maybe branch out a little). That shouldn't be the case because feats were added to create more diversity for the characters, not just to add a little "umph" to your class, without really changing it. I think that 7 feats in 20 levels just falls short of what they were intended to do. Yeah.

[Linklegacy77]

The thing is though, at low levels you aren't supposed to be diversified like that. In fact, wizards deliberately made it so that you couldn't be skilled and diversified at low levels, at least, not without being very very weak. When the players are much more diversified, it gets harder on the DM. And I don't think it's so much a drought of feats, more than the fact that wizards keeps introducing more and more feats, and you want many of them. If it was just core, trust me, there aren't that many feats to want to increase the amount. And the feats do change your character. They can make your character a huge amount more powerful. (See Divine Metamagic, Complete Divine)

[Mercutio]

Xaden - you are (purposefully or not, I'm not sure) overlooking class abilities. A rogue doesn't just have 7 feats at level 20. He has 7 feats, four specialty rogue abilities (like improved evasion, bonus feats, or crippling strike), sneak attack damage, trapfinding, improved uncanny dodge, and skill checks that are literally otherworldly, like balancing his weight on a cloud.

Note that I purposely chose rogue because I think it's one of the weakest base classes.

Feats are not the be-all/end-all of character customization, and they shouldn't be. That's why there are skills and class features.

[LynMars]

There's also the option that if D20 just isn't customizable enough, there are other game systems out there that allow one to take whatever one wants by paying points and lacking levels. Customize all you want, forget about levels, class features, and feats.

When I first started RPing I ended up with a habit of wanting to make what I thought were rules-rounded chars, so I could fight some, and heal some, and talk some, and...Basically, jack-of-all-trades it. You know what the problem there is? You end up mediocre in a lot of things, and feeling useless anyway.

The way pretty much all RPGs are set up is so a single party member (and that's the key point here) is good in one specific thing. Maybe two, if done right. This is on purpose. Because RPGs are a social event, made with a group in mind. So you make up teams where each person has a specific function for the party's survivial.

There're still plenty of diversity and options available in this scenario--maybe the cleric's also the spokesman, and the Bard has to focus on Rogue abilities as the party doesn't have one--but too much "customization" makes one's role in the party way less clear, and makes one less good at what one does for the party.

If you want a character that can do three different things spectacularly out of the box, that's generally met with the term "go write your own fiction" where I hang out.

[LeadPal]

Why can't your character have some potnetial for greatness at the lower levels? Why is it that this sort of class diversity can only be obtained at epic levels? Then there's also the fact that getting up to epic level takes a long time. I think the whole point of low levels is that you're not powerful, flexible, and legendary. Quite the opposite, low level characters are barely passable at their primary abilities and totally incompetent at everything else. That's the point.

And no, getting to epic level doesn't take a long time, if you give out more experience as I suggested. If it takes a year to gain a level, give out twelve times more experience, and suddenly you're gaining a level a month. If the campaign goes for three years, you'd be well into epic by the end. Or something like that.

[AbusePuppy]

"Not powerful" isn't the same thing as "not interesting." With the aforementioned war fan sorcerer as an example, it isn't that he'd be particularly powerful (hitting twice for d4 with worse-than-mage-BAB is not going to overwhelm anything), but he is so bad that you might as well just stab yourself in the face at character creation because he'll never be able to accomplish anything except maybe dropping one of the fans on his toe one time.

I'll also point out that many other games allow low-level characters to be flexible, provided they are willing to make the appropriate sacrifices; it is mainly D&D and other inherently inflexible systems that prohibit your character from doing this sort of thing.

If the campaign goes for three years, you'd be well into epic by the end

I hate to tell you this but three years is a long time by most people's standards. If you're immortal and have infinite money that's cool and all but the rest of us have to deal with finite lifespans, changing circumstances, etc, etc.
__________________
"The worst part of it is all them Mary Kay zombies only eat the parts of you that are pink."

[Linklegacy77]

Well, then my suggestion would be, and this may sound slightly harsh so please don't take it as such, but play a different game. Seriously, if you don't like D&D's take on it, play a different game. D&D is based on certain level increases, such as a certain number of feats, class features, wealth, and things like that at a certain level. When you start screwing around with that, it makes the game much harder to keep running.

[Mercutio]

What Link said - if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to play that game.

Now, as for the realism aspect that everyone tries to drag in, especially those trying to denigrate the game, why do they totally abandon realism when it comes to character power? I don't know about you, but when I was 18 and just got my black belt, I wasn't some super-stud that kicked ass and took names. I could defend myself, but a black belt doesn't really mean all that much - maybe a level 2 monk. By the time I was 20, I would be the equivalent of a level 4 or 5 monk, but I still wasn't some god who could run up walls and do huge spinning wheel kicks in mid-air. So the power levels seem to scale just fine to me.

I challenge you to try and take any person in real life and give them 2 years of instruction and then ask them to kick Bruce Lee's butt. The changes herein to the feat and increased power levels that you and others propose are the equivalent of my 18 year old self black belt trying to beat up Chuck Norris. It doesn't make sense. A 20th level character takes on demons from hell and the power is scaled to that effect. Allowing a character at level 6 to be able to take on a demon from hell is ridiculous. D&D shouldn't ever scale like that.

Again, don't like it? Don't play it. Or else start in Epic Levels where nothing makes sense anyway.

[Linklegacy77]

Unless they are manes or dretches, those demons from hell are cr 1 and 2 respectably.

Sorry for that, but I definatly agree with Merc. Low level characters are supposed to have to focus in one area, it's what keeps the game fun for all the players. Nobody has any fun at all if the cleric is just a good a fighter as the fighter, as good a rogue as the rogue, and as good a caster as the wizard (which he will be with bonus feats, very easily). At low levels, a fighter class is supposed to be the only effective fighter. Unless you focus entirely on fighting, you shouldn't be good at it. Unless you focus entirely on skills, you shouldn't be as skilled as a rogue. With the bonus feats you present, it becomes very easy to specialize in several areas instead of just one at low levels. Thus, it makes the game slightly less fun for other players involved.

[AbusePuppy]

I'd like to point out that a level one or two monk is not a guy with two years of training; he's been training much of his life, from five to ten years. Even fighters and rogues, the youngest of the classes, are assumed to have been working at their first level for a significant portion of time. Random semi-trained people are represented by the non-PC classes (warrior, noble, expert, etc); PCs are supposed to be above-average, as indicated by their superior stats.

Well, then my suggestion would be, and this may sound slightly harsh so please don't take it as such, but play a different game.

Why? Have you never wanted to change any part of a game? Have you never made a house rule or prohibited something from an existing sourcebook because it was too good? Have you never created your own magic item/feat/prestige class/monster? Modifying the rules is inherent to the game. I agree it should be done with caution, but if all you're going to do is strictly follow everything from the book to the letter what's the GM for? Grab a set of random encounter tables and have yourself some "fun."

Not to be too harsh either but this is a discussion forum; if you don't want to discuss the issue at hand that's fine but saying "it's fine n00bs leave it alone lol" isn't really contributing anything.
__________________
"Say, why don't you come down off the fridge so we can cook up a pork chop for you."
"No way! the living always want to kill the undead... ALWAYS!"
"True enough. How about you hand me that jar of M&M's? The living always want M&M's."

[BigRedRod]

Not to be too harsh either but this is a discussion forum; if you don't want to discuss the issue at hand that's fine but saying "it's fine n00bs leave it alone lol" isn't really contributing anything.
That isn't what they are saying. It just seems (given what you posted in this and other D&D CY threads) that you really dislike d20 and all things related to it and this is something you are just not going to change your stance on. It may be better if you just pack in D&D and find yourself a system that suits your playstyle (I can't think of any decent rules light systems off the top of my head but I'm sure they must exist).

[Linklegacy77]

Thanks BRR, that's basically what we are saying. It's not as if I've never seen something I didn't like and wanted to change it, far from it, I've changed a few things, but nothing that severly affects the power level of the players. And telling you that we disagree and why is part of a discussion, not everybody in a discussion is going to agree with you.

Instead of modifying D&D to the point where it isn't D&D anymore, try finding a game that suits your playstyle more.

[Mercutio]

If you took that away from what I wrote AP, then I think you are reading it completely incorrectly. You aren't suggesting a rules change or a house rule. You are suggesting a full scale revamping of the system. Between the feats issue, the skills issue, the class issue, the tailoring issue, and something I'm sure I'm forgetting, you aren't just seeking to change little things. You advocate changing the skills system, feats, classes, power levels, upping the tailorability of characters - it sounds to me like GURPS or some other point-buy system is right up your alley. Those aren't house rule changes. Those are systemic changes, which is why we say maybe you should try another system. Or else make your own one. Modify the crap out of D&D if you wish, but then don't call it D&D, because it's not.

Do you modify the rules of Monopoly to make more sense and to change the play system?

[AbusePuppy]

Merc:
I have suggested a variety of things in many different posts. Not all of them are meant to be applied together. Many other people here have suggested similar things (for reference, I haven't said anything about the skill system other than that I don't particularly like the base mechanic that governs itm i.e. the base d20 mechanic). I'll admit: no, I don't particularly like D&D, but if you take a casual gander around the gaming would (and especially these boards) I think you'll find that it's really, really common. When there are twenty currently-running Shadowrun or BESM or WoD or TORG or Exalted or CoC games you might have a valid point but it's rather hard to give it up entirely when there are so very few alternatives around. Most of the changes I've suggested are significantly less major than those from published D&D sourcebooks (check out Unearthed Arcana, PHB II or DMG II for examples) and address issues which many people have admitted concern them. (I dare you- dare you- to tell me spellcasting classes aren't overpowered at high levels, or that it wouldn't be nice to be able to tweak your character a bit more.) They're intended to smooth what I percieve as bumps, things that make the system less enjoyable.

(I'm not sure which of you're posts you're referring to when you say "...If you took that away from my post...", being that the only part of your post I talked about was the two years of training = level 1 monk, which you didn't say anything about. Clarify? I'm sorta confused here.)

Do you modify the rules of Monopoly to make more sense and to change the play system?
Almost nobody actually plays by the printed rules of Monopoly. Seriously. Like, one in a hundred.


Link:
My main problem with that post of yours was that you didn't say why you disagreed or give any reasons. I'm perfectly fine with people telling me I'm a moron and am wrong about things but I kind of want actual arguments. All you really said there is the same thing in your post above this: "It's fine, play a different game." I think I've made some valid points (well, obviously I do, but...) about things and yet you completely ignored them, bypassing the entire process of argument. That, not your disagreement itself, was what bothered me.

Again, you all seem to think that I am a foaming-at-the-mouth enemy of everything that has every had a d20 logo on it; that's really not true. There are far, FAR worse systems out there. The fact that I've focused on the aspects of the system I consider negative is because that's sort of the point of these threads; no one has started a "let's list things we find to be acceptable about D&D" thread yet, and thus all you've heard of my opinions is the negative side. (For reference, I think that the spell memorization system, critical hits, stats, errata/clarifications, organization and many- but not all- of the worlds are all very successful features of D&D.) I don't think it's fair to get angry at me for presenting the downside of a system in an argument thread explicitly stated to be about dicussing said issue. It's not as though I've been spamming worthless "dnd r teh SUCK!!!!1" posts or even posting all that often; I have tried to make my arguments comprehensible and reasonably polite as well as respond to what is being discussed. I don't think I'm suggesting horribly unreasonable things. (If you think I am feel free to throw back a quote from one of my other posts in my face.) If people really think I'm being that much of an a** about the issue and that I need to shut the hell up and stop posting to threads about D&D then I will; there's not really a point to posting here if it's unappreciated, but wasn't aware that I was coming off as that much of a vicious, relentless hater of all things icosahedral.
__________________
"I wouldn't have eaten them under normal circumstances, but, you know, free internet ostrich meat."

[BigRedRod]

Merc:Almost nobody actually plays by the printed rules of Monopoly. Seriously. Like, one in a hundred.
The game sucks a bit less (i.e. doesn't last ten million years) if you play by the official rules but I've never met anybody who has. It is quite an interesting piece of western society that everybody "knows" how to play the game.

[Mercutio]

The game sucks a bit less (i.e. doesn't last ten million years) if you play by the official rules but I've never met anybody who has. It is quite an interesting piece of western society that everybody "knows" how to play the game.Really? I've only ever played by the Monopoly rules.

My point AP, is that your changes don't seem to be minor changes to me. They are systemic. It looks to me like you want to play soccer, but you allow people to pick up the ball, toss it to their friends, add a top post to the goal, and let people tackle each other. It resembles soccer, but would rightfully be called rugby. Why do that when you could just play rugby from the start?

[Linklegacy77]

Yeah, I only ever play by the printed rules. Here's an interesting fact for you all: My dad is part of the group that holds the world record for the longest game of Monopoly played in an elevator.

I'm sorry if you would rather have me give my reasons, but I'm fairly certain that throughout this thread that I have been, and I left them out of that particular post as I've already stated my position several times...

And nobody ever said that there aren't worse games than D&D, it just seems to several of us that D&D isn't the game for you, and maybe finding a different one would make you a bit happier.

[LeadPal]

I'll also point out that many other games allow low-level characters to be flexible, provided they are willing to make the appropriate sacrifices; it is mainly D&D and other inherently inflexible systems that prohibit your character from doing this sort of thing.You're not prohibited from doing these things; usually just from doing them well. The "appropriate sacrifices," I find, are usually losses of skill, which is exactly what's happening here.

Again, if you don't like it, play at higher levels. That would be balanced, and this would not be. After all, you're still only raising the bar for characters to specialize more and more with this rule. You're granting more potential flexibility, but also more room for abuse, and that is a Bad Thing. Just playing at higher levels is a built-in solution with inherent balancing controls. What could possibly be construed as wrong with that?

I hate to tell you this but three years is a long time by most people's standards. Then give out thirty-six times as much experience, and only play for one year. No one cares.

(I dare you- dare you- to tell me spellcasting classes aren't overpowered at high levels, or that it wouldn't be nice to be able to tweak your character a bit more.) Spellcasting classes aren't overpowered at high levels. Nonspellcasting classes are underpowered at high levels, because as far as I'm concerned spellcasters set the standard for balance. And although it would be nice to be able to tweak your character a bit more, it would be even nicer if the game was kept balanced. See, you can put a spin on anything.

[Linklegacy77]

See, what I did about the spellcasting issue was ban them entirely from my game. That game is currently running, and the closest thing are the psionic characters, and the psionic system is far more balanced than the magic system.

[AbusePuppy]

See, what I did about the spellcasting issue was ban them entirely from my game. That game is currently running, and the closest thing are the psionic characters, and the psionic system is far more balanced than the magic system.

So you banned three or four of the classes that compose the fundamental balance of the game and I'm the one suggesting "major changes"? (Like, uh, increasing the casting time of spells. And... wait, nevermind, that's the only actual change I've spelled out.)
__________________
"You do, however, raise one of the fundamental problems with utilitarianism: there's no pleasure calculus to measure our happiness, especially not one that can take into account the long-term effects of our actions."
"I like this phrase, 'pleasure calculus.' Is it truly as erotic as advertised?"

[Linklegacy77]

No, it isn't the same. I removed spellcasting classes from this game only, to test it, and replaced it with psionics, a more balanced system. There is no magic in this world, save for the magic of the mind. Simply banning classes does not ruin the balance of the game, nor does it change the balance of the game. The only shift in balance, is that the players no longer have access to magical items, so that is the only major shift. Still, this is a campaign specific change and not one I will reproduce for every game I run.

[AbusePuppy]

Removing a class is inherently a larger change that altering a class, you realize? Even with my changes to the spellcasting classes they are still existant for the most part, though weaker. Removing them fundamentally alters a lot of things. (There is no ressurrection or significant healing, no Wish/Miracle spells, many magic items can't exist without ad hoc rules, etc.) Temporary or not you made a massive alteration to the balance of the game by stripping all spellcasting classes out. (As an extreme example of how monster's power can change in your game a tarresque is literally unbeatable; there is no way to kill it. Other monsters can similarly change, such as anything with a curse effect and undead.) Even just removing the primary healing classes (cleric/druid) drastically alters what the players can do, much less the arcane casters as well.

Spellcasting classes aren't overpowered at high levels. Nonspellcasting classes are underpowered at high levels, because as far as I'm concerned spellcasters set the standard for balance.

That's like saying that James isn't taller than Jesse, Jesse is shorter than James; they're equivilent statements, outside of some very minor technicalities.

And although it would be nice to be able to tweak your character a bit more, it would be even nicer if the game was kept balanced. See, you can put a spin on anything.
I don't even see what those two statements have to do with each other; they're in no way mutually exclusive. Do you also refuse to accelerate in your car because it is possible to crash if you go to speeds greater than zero?
__________________
"I like my women like I like my gin- twelve years old and mixed up with coke."

[Linklegacy77]

Actually, there is significant healing and ressurection, as with Complete Psionic there is now significant psionic healing with the life mantle, and there is a prestige class on wizards.com that is a psionic healer. And reality revision is the psionic equivalent of wish/miracle. The only thing you've mentioned that is true is magic items, which I am well aware of. And there are many ways to kill the tarrasque, such as drowning. The tarrasque is easy to kill if you are clever enough, and there is Reality Revision if you have to wish it stay dead. And here's another change, monsters for the most part don't exist either. There are no orcs, no goblins, no kobolds. There is no tarrasque! Please, unless you know what psionics are quite capable of, don't make assumptions like that. A psion might not be quite as capable a healer as a cleric, but they can play the role well enough. A lot of people play without psionics but play with spellcasting. I'm trying to find out if the opposite works, because spellcasting and psionics are very similar. The effects are very alike, except for flavor, and the mechanics involved in using the powers vs. casting spells. Whereas one is a spell slot, the other requires power points.

[AbusePuppy]

...The Life mantle is very, very limited in healing (worse than a Bard, for crying out loud). I haven't checked out the online stuff but odds are it's equally bad. A decent healer can heal in the neighborhood of 100+ HP/day by ~5th level; a psion healer is maybe half to two-thirds of that? And at a much slower rate as well, I might add, whereas a cleric can do useful healing in the middle of a fight.

The effects of magic and psionics are superficially similar but leave the characters with very different options. Many of the low-level utility spells that characters rely on (Invisibility, etc) are lacking or completely nonpresent for psions. And, like sorcerers, they give up greatly in variety of spells known, meaning a character who can heal will be unable to do very much else. Please, unless you actually understand the implications of what you're saying don't lecture me on mechanical aspects of the rules.

(By the way, drowning can't kill a tarresque. Neither can anything else except a Wish/Miracle, though I would assume Reality Bend could as well. You can be as clever as you want but it's still got almost a thousand HP, unstoppable regeneration and the strength to break a pure adamantium barrier in a few turns. Maybe with three or six dozen permanant Walls of Force...)
__________________
"But everyone has different tastes, you know? You just have to reach deep down inside yourself and pull out something... not like, organs, though."

[Linklegacy77]

BRR Edit: Discussion of Tarrasque killing moved to here (http://online-roleplaying.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6528).

...The Life mantle is very, very limited in healing (worse than a Bard, for crying out loud). I haven't checked out the online stuff but odds are it's equally bad. A decent healer can heal in the neighborhood of 100+ HP/day by ~5th level; a psion healer is maybe half to two-thirds of that? And at a much slower rate as well, I might add, whereas a cleric can do useful healing in the middle of a fight.

Well, so what if it isn't as good healing? It makes for a more challenging match and more tactics. It still doesn't upset the game balance too much anyway, as after the battle the person can be healed. And it is quite capable of providing enough healing in battle to make a difference. (And you are aware that I have said psionics is a more balanced system? Telling me that magic is more powerful doesn't change that at all)

And here's a couple things about psionics that you have overlooked in your mentions of sorcerers. Firstly, Erudite. There, a psionic character who can know every power. Moving on. Psionic characters have the distinct advantage over a sorcerer in that their old powers don't ever become useless to them. A sorcerer once he gets up to around 5th level spells, will hardly ever use first level spells. A psion, gets milage out of first level powers in epic levels even. That is because, he can augment them to make their power level useful. Thus, he winds up being one hell of a lot more versitile than the sorcerer, because the difference in levels of his powers is irrelevant, while it matters very much for a sorcerer, because there is no way for their 1st level spells to be on par with higher level spells. Thus, they don't use them.

[Xaden]

Well, I've been away for 5 days and I see this thread has taken on a life of its own (much like a good RPG) and, despite all the conflict which has arisen, I have really enjoyed what's come up. There's been a lot of good and intersting things brought up.

I will try not to touch too much upon the original idea (since that seems to have been long abandoned) but I want to just a little (before I may just walk away from this thread alltogether as it's quite fun to see where it goes without me). Now it has been suggested that I stop playing D&D if it's not giving me what I want (in the case of this thread, enough feats for characters), but I really don't think it's neccessary to do that. D&D is a game I love and have been playing for many many years, but, like all systems I feel it has its flaws and drawbacks, but it has many strong points as well. But just because I find a couple things that I don't particularly like I see no reason to spend a small fortune on some other gaming system that I might or might not find more enjoyable to me. Why can't I just keep the things I like, the things I think are strong points and make the aspects I find less enjoyable more enjoyable by changing them? Okay, maybe the game isn't the original "D&D v 3.5", so maybe I'll call it "D&D v William" (it's still D&D just with some... tweeks. If you add batteries to a toothbrush and make the head vibrate don't you still call it a toothbrush? Okay, maybe an e-toothbrush, but still a toothbrush).

I've been told to maybe increase XP and level faster to get the extra feats I like, but I find that that creates significantly greater power jumps than just adding a couple of feats to the characters. I heard that adding more feats to increase versitility reduces the role-definitions set forth by the core classes, but I find a rogue is still a rogue even if he has spiked chain proficiency and focus, and a fighter is still a fighter even if he takes iron will and Move Silently Skill Focus, and a wizard is still a wizard even if he takes Improved Initiative and Weapon Finesse. The roles are still there (and in my opinion very much so still), but yes, just slightly blurred more, but I like that sort of diversity and richness in my games (D&D v. William). I mean, I have studied computer programming for much of my life, but I also took some martial arts, I rock-climb and kayak, and I even ocasionally write poetry and short stories. Few people rarely are just "one-role" and I like the fact that extra feats can help represent that within D&D (and, from my own personal experience from playing games with extra feats (both as DM and PC) not unbalance the game significantly).

I see that many of you like the more specific roles that the classes and current allotment of feats allows, and if that's how you enjoy playing the game, then great! If nothing else, I'm happy that I could have been of service in reminding you and reinforcing within you why you play that way and why you enjoy playing that way (at least I assume you enjoy playing that way, otherwise, why would you be doing it?).

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, enjoy the way you play the game, and if you don't enjoy it, than change the way you play until you do. There are many systems out there and I believe each have their own virtues and flaws, but in the end those virtues and flaws are unique to you (what I see as a weakness in D&D several of you see as a strength, is either of us right or wrong? No, each is valid but mearly opinion on a constantly evolving system). So be respectful to everyone's opinions, be open-minded to new ideas, be ready to change things to be more enjoyable and love the way you play! And if you're happy with the way things are, then you're playing right!

Shine on you crazy diamonds!
--Pink Floyd (slight paraphrase? eh... close enough)

[Linklegacy77]

Thing is though, that if you grant extra feats, most characters aren't going to use it on versitility, but to increase their specialty in their one area. I know I would.

[akiko]

Hear. Hear. I would be an uber something with more feats. Anything, doesn't even matter what. Like Link said.

[Xaden]

Well, it may be true that you'd use them to make yourself more uber in one area, and I've even seen it done a couple of times in the various games where there were extra feats that I've played in, but I've also seen people branching out with their feats more often when they have the feats to do such. And then I think there's just the question, do the extra feats really throw off the balance of the game? Does your game lose control and get "over-powered" just because the rogue in the group has dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack andTwo Weapon Fighting? Surely the game was equiped to handle a rogue with Two Weapon Fighting, and it was capable of handling a rogue with Spring Attack, so is a roge with both really that much more powerful that he's out of control with power? Out of control in the game? You could use similar examples with all the classes (a fighter who's an uber archer, a wizard with a couple extra matamagic feats (does it matter if he has both Maximize Spell and Quicken Spell, yeah he can cast Melf's Acid Arrow with both, but as a 9th level spell, is that really better than just a Quickened Cone of Cold?)).

I guess what I'm trying to say is the potential for abuse is okay and worth the potential for a greater array of characters (and in the games I've played with extra feats, I've seen a lot more of character's branching out to round out their characters and their concepts than people just focusing in one area, but as I said, I've felt that it doesn't significantly throw off the balance of the games I've played and everyone has seemed to have a better time playing D&D with the extra feats).

So I say, if people want to "abuse" the extra feats by focusing in just one area, let them! There are certainly people who do that in real life, but I do not want to be the one who holds back great character concepts just because a handful of people would take advantage (and as I've mentioned, an advantage that I've experienced in the games I've played as being fairly minor) of a change in rules, especially if it seems like everyone (including those who don't abuse the change) are having more fun playing that way.

[LynMars]

Pretty much. Most players are going to abuse the heck out of more feats, until they get to the higher levels, when they've twinked to hell and back, and then start "branching out" as they would normally anyway. it just may happen a couple levels earlier than otherwise.

[Mercutio]

I don't see how allowing more feats equates to "the potential for a greater array of characters". If you play with people who need more feats in order to hit that potential for a greater array of characters, I'm glad I play with people who don't rely on mechanics to make their characters interesting.

Again, having a rogue with all the feats you mentioned isn't bad - when the rogue is at the regular equivalent level. If you go about granting that many more extra feats, then the challenges will have to be scaled accordingly. If that's what you want to do, then fine. I'd prefer to not have fourth level rogues with dodge, mobility, spring attack, and two-weapon fighting. With your way, I could have that, take two flaws, and play a human, and have weapon finesse, improved two-weapon fighting, and weapon focus shortsword. That's insane. If you don't think that's a balancing problem, then I think you and I have very different opinions of what constitutes a balance problem.

[Xaden]

Well, I see what you're trying to say, but I still don't think it's much of a balancing problem. I've never much cared for flaws, but I still don't think that's a problem, and just to be nit-picky you couldn't have improved two-weapon fighting as a 4th level rogue because you don't have the prerequisite neccissary (a BAB of 6+) but you could certainly have something else that gave you some sort of nice bonus, I understand.

But let's just say you did have those extra feats (barring Improved TWF), so what? You get to use your Dex instead of Str for melee attacks with light weapons. Most likely that means you have a higher Dex than Str (otherwise it would be a silly feat to take), but since in pretty much every game I've played the players were allowed to chose which scores they rolled go where. Well what if you didn't have Weapon Finesse and instead put the higher score in Str, well you'd still get the bonus to melee attacks with light weapons and you'd have a higher bonus to damage. Okay, maybe your ranged attacks go down a little, but your damage with most attacks go up. Your AC probably doesn't suffer since you can wear bigger armor (since you're not worrying too much about the Max Dex Bonus of the armor). There are trade-offs there, but your character can still have that sort of potential without the feat, so it helps you a little but not more than you could have already done.

Short Sword Focus is a nice feat, but lets face it, as you go up in level a +1 to your attacks with a certain weapon is not that big a deal, it gradually but fairly rapidly means less and less.

And yes, some scaling has to occur, but minor scaling, pretty much all you have to do is grant the monsters the extra feats as well, then the monsters scale with the characters. Now I can certainly understand that if as a DM you don't want to have to pick more feats for the monsters or NPC villains, DMs have to do enough work as it is. I personally don't mind, but I'd say that that would be a valid argument. (let's face it, who isn't lazy from time-to-time?) Okay, you don't want to do the extra work that you need to when you increase the number of feats granted in your game, that's fine, sometimes picking out feats can be hard (but as I mentioned already, I like that and really don't mind doing it when I DM).

Another thing I just thought of, in your example you had a rogue with 7 feats (using my extra granted feats system), but even without my extra feats system you could still have the rogue with 5 feats, all he loses is 2 feats, so he doesn't have Short Sword Focus and Improved TWF (which he technically didn't meat the prerequisites for anyways). Does that loss of a +1 to a fair amount of his attacks and whatever else he might of had really weaken him that much? Are you really bringing him down to some significanlty more reasonable level by taking away two of his feats? Maybe, but I'm not sure I really think so.

Mercutio also brought up the valid point that the player should be able to add the versitility independently of the system (or in this case, with fewer feats), and true enough, everyone can do that with unique personality quirks and interesting mannerisms for their character and that is a significant part of character diversity, but what I'm trying to add is something within the system (well, in this case, with a minor modification to the system) that can help bring out that extra diversity and richness. It's great to have characters with different quirks and personalities, but I think these things become even better when you can use the system (or a system) to bring them out within the game more, within whatever rules set you are using. As I mentioned before (I believe) game mechanics can help encourage role-playing and character diversity (or, likewise quench it) and I've found that the addition of a couple of extra feats helps to do this.

Maybe I just play with the type of gamers who can use these extra feats to further define their characters, and their personalities and backstories instead of just abusing the extra feats granted. I'm not sure that's really the case becasue as I've said there have been some players who just focus even more with the extra feats, but as I've also mentioned in this post and in several others in this thread, I don't feel that a couple extra feats really throws the balance out of wack for the games I've been in. In fact, if feats truly were so overpowering I would suspect that there would be fewer attempts by people to try and "balance" out spellcasters as I've seen in several other threads. But it seems like, even though fighters get a large plethora of feats, a decent number of people still seem to feel that high-level spellcasters are a fair amount more powerful than high level fighters (and most other classes for that matter). I would prefur not to go into wether or not high-level spellcasters are balanced or not, there are plenty of other threads around this fabulous website where you can talk about that, but I'm just trying to make the point that if feats were truly so awesomly powerful people would be trying to "balance" fighters as well as spellcasters, so maybe a few extra feats don't hurt.

I know, I'll be hard-pressed to prove that last point, but all I can say is that from my own personal experience of using my extra-feats system, the characters haven't gotten out of control, the power-levels were not overwelming, I could still challenge my players (and when I wasn't DMing, I was being challenged as well) and I found that a greater richness and diversity was comming out of the players. Yes, a lot of it was that the players developed a good background and personalities for their characters, but it was also the extra potential that the extra feats granted. It, for us, increased the richness and enjoyability of our games and without us having to play very high-level characters for that richness and diversity (and if you've played both high-level and low-level games, you've probably found that they are fairly different, though both can be quite enjoyable (I'm definetly not trying to downplay either one)).

[Linklegacy77]

I can already make a level 1 character with 5 feats. Do you really need to make it possible for me to add on more to that?

Human, fighter 1, 2 flaws, nets me 5 feats. With more, I wouldn't even have to pick and choose, I could have everything that interests me. Part of the balancing factor for higher level feats, are prerequisites based on needing other feats, such as whirlwind attack, which requires 4 feats to take. If you hand out feats like candy, then it seems much more likely that anybody at all who is interested is going to have it, instead of just the fighter. And honestly, why play a fighter? The whole point to the fighter is getting feats, but if you are going to hand out a bunch of extra feats, why bother?

[Xaden]

Yes, it's true that you can have someone with 5 feats at first level, with my method you can have 6, that's one extra feat. The system can already be "abused" as you pointed out, 5 feats at first level. Yes, using my system does give you 5 extra feats by 20th level, but that's it, 5 extra feats by 20th level. Okay, at first level with my system you could have 6 feats, but already you could have 5 if you wanted, does that extra Weapon Focus that you buy with my extra feat that I grant at first level really throw the game out of wack? Or that one less flaw that you have to take to get the same number of feats?

Here's a little chart to show how many extra feats you get from using my system at each level
Level/extra feats:
1/+1
2/+2
3/+1
4-7/+2
8/+3
9/+2
10-13/+3
14/+4
15/+3
16-19/+4
20/+5

Now as I mentioned before, I'm not to big on flaws, but if you want to use them than okay, I'm fine with that since they come with thier own, often fairly significant drawbacks. That too adds a lot of flavor and diversity in the characters so that's a good way to do things, but in the end my modification does add some feats, but not exactly an overwelming number of them, and while it is true that several feats have multiple other feats as prerequisites, many of those feats also have some other noteworthy prerequisites as well, take Whirlwind Attack, in addition to the 4 feats you need for it (which as you mentioned you could already have under the normal system with just one flaw if it weren't for Spring Attack's prerequisite of BAB 4+) you also need a BAB of 4+ for Whirlwind which still restricts it to a 4th level feat at the soonest. Actually, looking at that the normal system doesn't even allow you to get Whirlwind at 4th level (unless you don't "spend" some feats gained at earlier levels) since you can't even purchase Spring Attack until at least 4th level (for classes with high BABs).

And still with my system fighters still get significantly more feats than the other classes (basically double). I still feal that the extra feats I grant are just a nice spice, a nice little addition that doesn't really throw things out of wack.

[LynMars]

That's if the GM even allows flaws. I've yet to play in a game that does.

[BigRedRod]

Same here. The proposed flaw system is pretty terrible.

[akiko]

Only online have I used the D20 flaw system. Though we used to use the merits and flaws in VtM.

[Linklegacy77]

But that's just it, really. Why do you need the extra feats? Just because you want to be more powerful? Why? Does it not make sense that a character who specializes in one area wouldn't be able to do other things nearly as well? I've played in both high powered games, and in low powered games, and I'll tell you, that the low power games are actually more often fun. Throwing out 5 more feats just adds to the abuse that's easy to do.

And no, feats are not small things, once you get past the first 3 levels. Each feat can make a huge difference if you use it right. Improved toughness, a feat you can grab at first level if you meet the prerequisites, doesn't seem that great. It's 1 more hp per hit die. But once you get to level 20, it's on par with an epic feat. Every time you give another feat, you give each character much more potential for power. (Not to mention it makes meeting the prerequisites for PrC's much easier, and makes abusing them much more likely. Seriously, most PrC's that are very good have hard prerquisites in the form of feats that people normally wouldn't take. This completely gets rid of that.)

[LeadPal]

I'll say again: Xaden, your system is not terribly unbalanced. It is not game-crushingly, fun-ruiningly terrible. But frankly, there's no point. Under normal circumstances, your system can't accomplish what you want it to do. It may work alright at times and for some people, but all too frequently it's just a step in the wrong direction.


I've been told to maybe increase XP and level faster to get the extra feats I like, but I find that that creates significantly greater power jumps than just adding a couple of feats to the characters.Power is relative. When you gain a level, effectively you gain no power, because the challenge of your usual enemies increases commensurately. A CR 20 monster, ideally, is supposed to consume 20% of a 20th level parties resources, after all; much like a CR 1 monster is supposed to consume 20% of a 1st level parties resources.

With a built-in way to pull this off in a perfectly fair manner (or at least as fair as the game gets), why stick with a system that has such inherent room for abuse?