Feat packages

[Aus_Snow]

With [more than] a nod to Upper_Krust's excellent Immortals Handbook: Ascension, I was wondering how much interest there might be among 3e DMs around here, in well, feat packages. That is, little (or occasionally not so little) bundles of feats that help to streamline the process of mid and high (and even low-mid) level character and monster statting. Usually, there would still be a feat slot or two (or three, or whatever) left over for something a bit different - and I'm not thinking of a mandatory system, but rather an optional one, for those times when it seems appropriate or just downright handy.

To borrow a term that predates both 4e and 3e, 'roles' might be a good approach. Just not necessarily in the way 4e (or, for instance, the Fiendish Codex I) presents them. So, Archer is a definite possibility. Thief, perhaps. Manipulator, Assassin and Brute (from FC I, actually)? Fireslinger? Dueller? Wrestler? Just off the top of my head. Anyway, you get the idea.

Just musing on it at the moment, but it seems like a reasonable idea. I mean, yes, it's true that there are DMs out there who can do this kind of stuff without even thinking about it. And that's awesome! But I get the impression that many can't, and frankly maybe don't want to (or can't) put oodles of time and effort into that particular area of DMing / game mastery.

So, if anyone wants to go ahead with this (otherwise I'll be quite OK to do so myself, if more slowly and less comprehensively), please post your ideas for roles, their packages, and of course the feats in them. This section of 'Realmshelps' might be useful for those without access to many of the non-core books. Or current access to the core books, for that matter.

Or hey, if it's (IYO) a terrible idea, tell me why! Not that I'll necessarily care one bit, but if something strikes you as fundamentally wrong about all this, speak your mind, please.

 

[Runestar]

You mean something like a sample block of feats if you want the monster to conform to a particular theme?

Maybe...feats are from PHB2

General tips: take quicken SLA whenever you qualify for it.

For extra will save - endurance + steadfast determination (useful on monsters with high con but crap wis, such as trolls). For added insurance, throw in iron will and indomitable will as well.

Striker - dodge, mobility, spring attack, bounding assault, rapid blitz. Required: dex13+, bab18+. Great at high lvs because your foe can hit-and-run, thus getting in multiple attacks while denying melee-classes their full attack (since they must typically move to attack).

Brute - 3-mountains style (races of stone). 5-feat tree which lets you daze a foe if you hit with 2 attacks. Fun with hill giants.

Vs specific attack routines.

Combat acrobat - against trippers.

Am I on the right track?

 

[Aus_Snow]

You mean something like a sample block of feats if you want the monster to conform to a particular theme?

---snip---

Am I on the right track?

Sure, yep. Except there is no 'right track'.

It's open to whatever people reckon could work.

So, a DM is statting up a NPC of 12th level - they might look up the Archer package, and just use that. Or, it might be more like 'the 12HD Archer package' (being five of them in a particular order), or 'Archer Rank V [5]'. Dunno, really.

Just seeing what people think of it, if there's any interest, and how folks might set about implementing it, if it's worth the doing.

I can see merit in it, but then I'm biased, no doubt.


P.S. I like a couple of those you did there.

 

[Runestar]

It probably seems redundant doing this for npcs (since in theory, you could simply give them any ability you want as a DM), but if you are looking for ways to give them new attack options, feats are probably the best way to go (since they are really the only aspect of the stat block you can freely alter).

Seems like fun, but this could be the PC optimizer in me speaking. And too being indoctrinated in the "NPCs follow PC creation rules" tenet of 3e.

I could see it being divided into multiple sections.

One could focus on feats which grant useful passive abilities, if you have extra feat slots but do not want to make your npc too complex to run by allowing him too many options. Examples include improved multiattack, improved initiative, improved natural attack. They allow you to effectively "forget" the feat was ever there after factoring it into its stat block.

Next are feats meant to counter specific builds. For example, certain monsters such as hezrou and djinni qualify for the mage slayer feat.

Then there are feat trees to allow interesting attack options. Surprise your PCs with a 12-headed hydra that has robilar's gambit. Or an elemental with the rapidstrike feat.

Definitely seems like fun. Anyone else have any other variations they have tried?

 

[lvl 1 fighter]

NPC Tripper vs PC Power Attack

H Combat Expertise
1 Dodge
F1 Mobility
F2 Combat Focus
3 Combat Stability
F4 Improved Trip
6 Elusive Target
F6 Combat Defense

Change your dodge buddy on the fly to avoid Power Attacks and Trip the PC's as you move in and around them.

 

[wolfpunk]

I think it is a brilliant idea. I am not sure how many other DMs do this, but in almost all instances, if I pull a monster out of the monster manual, I dump all of it's feats and pick new ones. It keeps the PCs on their edge for one, but also lets me customize the monster to better fit the role I am envisioning for it.

What I think would be neat would be if you could estimate it out so that to add say a specific three to five feats to a monster was equal to a bump of CR +x.

So maybe a Brute would be, power attack, cleave, and great cleave and that is a CR +2.

A Survivor might be, dodge, iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude and toughness and that is a CR +1.

A Defender might be, combat expertise, combat reflexes, endurance and die hard and that is CR +1

An Attacker might be weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialization, and improved critical and that is CR +2.

Just ideas off the top of my head, no idea if that would work or if the CR adjustments are anywhere near correct.