Concerning Feats

I'm not counting on anyone, period, ever agreeing that the Extreme Feat Option is reasonable (that's why it's called the *Extreme* Feat Option.)

But if your party can, at 1st level, figure out a way to smoke 100 orcs and 4 ogres, and they pull these kinds of stunts regularly, and they choose Slow Advancement (double the extremis), then obviously you'd expect some pretty wild results, no?
(I'm not betting than any party could kill 100 orcs and 4 ogres. We couldn't, and I don't know if anyone could. It's just that our DM *thought* we could, for some reason.)

-

The Feats Galore option?
Well, I've already said that I think players should have 3 times as many feats as normal, in 3E.
In the case of Feats Galore, the party is advancing half as fast, in order to gain additional feats over and above the increased standard rate of advancement, and that is a major sacrifice (the way I'd DM, it'd be a major sacrifice ... it's no joke, trying to survive at low level, even with a gentle DM.)
I'm sure the Feats Galore would make feat-happy players ... happy! (that's why I call it Feats Galore! )

-

The 1 feat /level advancment option with the drawback option from Unearthed Arcana? (but no additional feat options like Slow Advancement)
That's how I think the rules should have been in the first place (and fighter and metamagic and other feats should have been in addition to that.)

-

If the party gets to rest, for an entire day, after each combat, then ... the RAW seem most appropriate. 1 or 2 starting feats, 1 feat at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.

That's my take. Any comments? What do you think?

(Before you remark that the Extreme Feat Option or Feats Galore are over the top, remember that's I've already said so myself.)

I've always felt that feat slots were too few for the number of options available, especially since some feats seem like things an normal adventurer should be able to do.

I think a smoother option would be to allow one or more of the following options:

1. Allow a feat at 1st level/HD and every even level/HD. This increases the number of feat slots from 8 to 11. By 8th level, a character has at least 5 feats rather than the conventional 3.

2. Allow a feat at every level/HD.

3. Use Action Points and the option to emulate a feat which they don't have but qualify for.

Remember to apply the same options to NPCs and monsters.

Edena_of_Neith said:

I know that most DMs wouldn't throw either encounter at their party. However, I would, and I wouldn't pull any punches.
A party in my game would need the extra feats to survive such situations.

I always felt strange about the idea of the party fighting one battle, resting for a day, and going on to the next battle. The unfought monsters are fresh and ready to fight, they hear a combat in the distance, and they're smart enough to come calling (the PCs would investigate!)

Click to expand...

Trust me, I know it seemed like they must have had tons of feats or something, but you have to remember a couple things. 1) It's a movie. Hollywood throws more bad guys on the screen to make it more dramatic and increase tension. 2) Those orcs are theoretically only CR 1/2, so if the party is high enough level with a good AC then the only threat posed is a crit, which means guys like Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir (who I assume are fairly high level) should be able to avoid most damage and just mow through the orcs. Power Attack+Cleave+Great Cleave= craploads of dead orcs.

Hey there, Angrydad. Good afternoon (at least, from here )

Again, my background on orcs is different (winces.)
I remember that statement from the 1E DMG: 'Four orcs come around the corner ...'

We had two fighters, a cleric, and a thief in our group. We stopped at a door which was stuck closed.
Our attempts to open it caused 4 orcs to come investigating, swords out, and they appeared behind the party and caught us by surprise.
The cleric and thief were caught, since the fighters were at the door, ready for danger on that side.

We were TPKed. (Now, that's shameful, being TPKed by 4 orcs! I just have to wince, remembering that.)
All those orcs had was chain mail and shields, and swords. And Surprise (amazing what surprise does.)

So yeah, you don't need Peter Jackson's 80 orcs (Tolkien didn't have that many) to pose a challenge. Four orcs can be quite bad enough ...

I don't know, of course, what 'feats' Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli would have had.
I can guess a couple.

Aragorn and Legolas had Bloodline of the Kings.
Aragorn and Boromir had Bloodline of the Edain/Numenorians/Dunedain.
Aragorn had Endurance and Tracking.
Legolas had Multishot (of some sort.)
Gimli had Heavy Armor and Shield Proficiencies feats.

Remember, I don't know what 'levels' these guys would be.

If we 'translate' these characters, giving them 'feats' according to their actions on-screen, and in the books ...
If they have but x number of feats, I guess they'd fit within the standard 3E system (1-2 starting feats + 1 feat at 3rd, 6th, 9th, + fighter feats, etc.)
If they have more, they'd fall into the 1 feat/level rulesset I espoused.
Give them more, and they're in the Feats Galore category.
And if they have enough feats - if you really need a lot of feats to emulate them - then they'd be considered to have followed the Extreme Feat Option.

But what feats did these guys have? Use the Peter Jackson film versions. Considering what they did on-screen, what feats did they have?

The Extreme Feat Option is:

Gestalt characters (not averaged, but best of BAB and saves.)
Double starting feats (3, or 4 if human.)
Drawbacks allow 2 feats per drawback (maximum of 2 drawbacks and 4 feats.)
2 feats per level, including 1st level.
Fighters gain fighter feats normally.
Wizards gain metamagic feats at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.
Other classes gain feats as per normal.
Slow Advancement is an option, in which case it takes twice as long to advance, but 6 feats (2 classes x 3 feats per level) are gained instead (but if Slow Advancement is chosen, the party is stuck with it permanently.)
Gestalt characters may take levels in Feat Master (although this could be a serious mistake, and should be carefully thought through.)

Click to expand...

Talk about over the top.

Not the extra feats alone, but you have already added in the ultimate in powergaming (gestalt) and then layered on extra feats.

My advice, pick one or the other but not both.

Either gestalt or the slow advancement/extra feats.

By combining them you have forced yourself into a game where all encounters must have +2/3 added on to the EL just to break even. Far too many house-rules for my taste.

On the General RPG Discussion board, check out the thread "What Is GURPS"--this describes the GURPS system and one of the systems it surely is based on (considering both game designers have lived here in Austin since at least the 70s it would be too much a coincidence otherwise), David Nalle's Ysgarth (Wikipedia has articles on em both). Both are essentially "point buy" systems--for feats and skills and the like. I'm starting to think that a system like that might be more to your liking? In any case, if you want to stick to D&D otherwise, you'll probably have to house rule it. As a DM, the whole idea seems like a whole lot of work for very little payback--in fact, one of the problems I've had with the game in recent years is all the alternate new feats everywhere, many of them kind of dopey, published by WoTC and elsewhere, just seems like so much hoopla over nothing frankly. But you can change it for your own needs, and that is one of the nice things about 3rd edition.

irdeggman said:

Talk about over the top.
Not the extra feats alone, but you have already added in the ultimate in powergaming (gestalt) and then layered on extra feats.
My advice, pick one or the other but not both.
Either gestalt or the slow advancement/extra feats.
By combining them you have forced yourself into a game where all encounters must have +2/3 added on to the EL just to break even. Far too many house-rules for my taste.

Click to expand...

Well, ok, you are quite right. It is extreme. And I call it extreme too (the Extreme Feat Option.)

There are some MAJOR assumptions built into allowing such a character:

1. The campaign was feat rich to start with. The 'normal' campaign allowed 1 feat per level, instead of 1 feat at 3rd level, 6th level, 9th level, etc. (on top of fighter feats, metamagic feats, etc.)

2. The Unearthed Arcana rules for Drawbacks are used.

3. The character chose Slow Advancement, a permanent decision that cannot be revoked. The character gains 3 feats per level, but must acquire twice as many experience points to level.

The above creates the Feats Galore Scenario, in which there are a LOT of feats in the game, but we are still using standard characters.
This would be a game for players who really, really wanted a lot of feats, and were prepared to make major sacrifices to obtain them.

The Extreme Feat Option is another matter.

This option assumes that only 1 character is in the party. The 1 character IS the party. She is alone.
There are 2 classes missing. The character can be two classes, but two classes are missing, and there is no way to make up for their loss - except by gestalt multiclassing (fighter/mage and cleric/rogue) and good luck with that with Slow Advancement as I described it ... advancement is going to be a nightmare if the character insists on Slow Advancement on top of multiclassing, taking FOUR TIMES as much experience as normal.
Thus, the gestalt character, desiring to be a Jack of All Trades for survival purposes, must gain 4,000 experience points to make levels 2/2, 8,000 to make 3/3, 12,000 to make 4/4, and 16,000 to make 5/5.

I the DM would expect great things out of this character. The player wanted an *extremely* capable character (I would argue that gestalts are rather capable characters ...) and thus he or she had better *PLAY* that character in a capable way.
If the player merely wanted to powermonger and had no real playing experience, the result would be a dead character.
If the player was very experienced, and wanted to simulate an extremely capable character with a rich history, and was willing to take on great challenges, then she might have a lot of fun in such a situation.

And she'd be in that situation for a long time. Look at the experience point requirements above. If she multiclasses, she's stuck with that. If she doesn't, she's missing 2 classes and how will she survive without them?

In this scenario, I doubled all feats, since the gestalt character must pull double weight (or, more likely, quadruple weight.)
She'll gain those double feats, but she WILL have to pull double or more weight, and it WILL be hard.

So yes, she gains double feats for drawbacks, starting, level, and if she uses it, Slow Advancement.
She may well rue the bargain.

Again, I cite the example, for in THIS case it (well, something like it) would come true against the character in question:

Gandalf in the film ROTK: 'Remember that you are soldiers of Gondor! No matter what comes through that gate, you will stand your ground!'

Guess who is taking Gandalf's place, here!

So, a lot of feats? Yes. But be careful what you ask for, goes the old expression.

(muses)

I suppose a group of players with, say, 7th level powermongering players (with the Extreme Feat Option) might exist.
And then, I put them in Gandalf's situation in that film.

The players look at me in disbelief and ask: 'You expect us to stand up against the entire Morgul Host?!! The Morgul Lord?!!!'
And I answer: 'You didn't think you got all that for free, did you? You didn't expect to get it all, without having to give something back, did you?'

If a group of players came to me and asked for the Extreme Feat Option, I would deny it.

If they were experienced players and good roleplayers, and they asked for it, I would allow the Feats Galore Option (with the warning of the difficulties of Slow Advancement and it's irrevocable nature.)

But to allow an entire party to have the Extreme Feat Option doesn't seem viable to me, unless their idea of gaming involves constantly taking on challenges FAR, FAR greater than their CR level.