dave2008
Legend
Good point - I've got to stop derailing threads!
Feat Points
Good point - I've got to stop derailing threads!
I mean exactly what the rulebook means
"you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two Ability Scores of your choice by 1."
Sure, if you must. It might allow you to gain a 20 in your prime stat two levels earlier, so I'm not adopting it myself.
That doesn't seem like a major issue to me. If anything, it's a nice way to make odd-numbered stats more useful. If you're determined to avoid hitting the 18 and 20 milestones early, you could always institute a level-based cap: You can't raise a stat to 18 until level 4, and you can't go to 20 till level 8 (fighters get the cap lifted early as a class feature).
I quite like how this makes the low-end feats more valuable, and the"power feats" require more investment. Might quibble a bit over what belongs in the 6-point bucket and what in the 4-point, but the basic idea seems solid.
I'm less sure about the top tier, though. The problem is that GWM and SS are "build-arounds," not remotely worth an 8-point investment unless you plan your PC in a way that lets you exploit the -5/+10 option. I'd rather tone down the exploit and leave the feat balanced for non-exploit use. What about simply removing the -5/+10, and then pricing the remainder at 2, 4, or 6?
(Though if you are absolutely committed to not touching the feats themselves... I guess 8 points might be a necessity.)
Last edited:
GlassJaw
Hero
Got a PM about this, so *BUMPing* to see if there's more thoughts on systems like this
Awesome!
Yeah, I posted a system I've been working on (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?655981-Point-based-Feat-System) and then found your thread. You mentioned you ended up scrapping this and instead rewriting/banning some feats. What was your end result? Why did you abandon this system?
Wow, somehow I missed this thread the first time around.
At first glance I thought "too complicated" but that may just be the way it is presented because after reading it a few times I think it's actually not that complicated at all. Basically you get a point each level and can spend them on feats -- pretty simple.
Some quick feedback:
I'd start variant humans with 3 extra points, so they can buy a 4-point feat right at 1st level.
2 points: Charger, Dungeon Delver, Grappler and Weapon Master
3 points: (most feats)
4 points: ASI; Alert, Crossbow Expert, Elven Accuracy (XGE), Heavy Armor Mastery, Magic Initiate, Mobile, Prodigy (XGE), Resilient, Sentinel, Shield Master, Tough, and War Caster
6 points: Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter
A lot of this is subjective/anecdotal based on what I've seen at the table, rather than based on rigorous analysis or anything, but that's how I'd price them.
At first glance I thought "too complicated" but that may just be the way it is presented because after reading it a few times I think it's actually not that complicated at all. Basically you get a point each level and can spend them on feats -- pretty simple.
Some quick feedback:
This seems too fiddly to me. I'd just let the PC bank feat points and spend them whenever (but only buy 1 feat per level).
Why not 4? This seems like a HUGE nerf to variant human, which is a terrible racial choice except for the feat. This means that the only feats variant humans can start with are Charger, Dungeon Delver, Grappler and Weapon Master -- the crap feats. I don't think it's fun to have a race that starts weaker than the others and needs to "save up" to get its racial features.
I'd start variant humans with 3 extra points, so they can buy a 4-point feat right at 1st level.
I feel like most of the 6-point feats are the ones I feel are balanced with an ASI. (Plus maybe a couple of the ones on your Tier 3/4 columns, like Heavy Armor Master, Magic Initiate, and Tough.) So I'd price those at 4 points, and put the remainder of the Tier 3/4 feats at a cost of 3 points, and the crap feats remain at at 2 points. Except for Polearm Master, which I think should stay at 6 points. Then I'd decrease GWM, Lucky, and Sharpshooter down to 6 points too. Because those are really good feats but not worth two full ASIs. Costing 1.5 ASIs is enough of a downside I think. So my list would be:
2 points: Charger, Dungeon Delver, Grappler and Weapon Master
3 points: (most feats)
4 points: ASI; Alert, Crossbow Expert, Elven Accuracy (XGE), Heavy Armor Mastery, Magic Initiate, Mobile, Prodigy (XGE), Resilient, Sentinel, Shield Master, Tough, and War Caster
6 points: Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter
A lot of this is subjective/anecdotal based on what I've seen at the table, rather than based on rigorous analysis or anything, but that's how I'd price them.
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, I didn't as much abandon this system as simply ending up using another approach: rewriting/banning individual feats.
PS. This process was covered by a series of threads which I imagine are best found through searching for threads started by me with the word "feat" in the thread title. (Sometimes using google with site:enworld.org is better than site-specific search) I can't vouch for taking every single step public, but if you find an appropriate thread and ask there, I'll post (repost?) my current section on feats (from my house rule document). DS
CapnZapp
Legend
My players never fail to precisely analyze the mathematical impact of every possible choice.I have yet to have any player use math to make a character choice. Of course I have only had 14 players in 30+ years of playing
CapnZapp
Legend
(cont'd)
They're the sort of players that bitterly complain a certain build choice would make perfect sense to pick conceptually, but the math prevents them from actually taking it, since it isn't good enough from a minmax perspective.
I insist on my belief that balancing the game for such gamers gives a superior end game for everybody; both optimizers and casuals.
Balancing the game for "casual" or "average" players is equal to... not really balancing the game at all, which results in a inferior end game for everybody.
This is because if you don't care about balance you're equally happy with a balanced and not-balanced game. If you care, you are only happy with a balanced game.
Thus: a balanced game makes everybody happy. A not-balanced game makes only people that don't care about balance happy. (And of course, Hasbro, since it means they get away with paying lower salaries to fewer designers. Yes, 5th edition is a success, but please don't try to tell me it's because feats like GWM are horribly broken. It would have been an even better game if we didn't have to houserule obviously bad game elements)
They're the sort of players that bitterly complain a certain build choice would make perfect sense to pick conceptually, but the math prevents them from actually taking it, since it isn't good enough from a minmax perspective.
I insist on my belief that balancing the game for such gamers gives a superior end game for everybody; both optimizers and casuals.
Balancing the game for "casual" or "average" players is equal to... not really balancing the game at all, which results in a inferior end game for everybody.
This is because if you don't care about balance you're equally happy with a balanced and not-balanced game. If you care, you are only happy with a balanced game.
Thus: a balanced game makes everybody happy. A not-balanced game makes only people that don't care about balance happy. (And of course, Hasbro, since it means they get away with paying lower salaries to fewer designers. Yes, 5th edition is a success, but please don't try to tell me it's because feats like GWM are horribly broken. It would have been an even better game if we didn't have to houserule obviously bad game elements)
CapnZapp
Legend
Thank you.
Yes. As you can read upthread, I am open to rethinking this if it turns out it doesn't change much in practice.
Isn't that like saying Superman is a terrible super hero except his invincibility?
Variant human is by far the best racial choice, given the ability to pick the best feat (as in RAW) and halving the feat bonus now that it's numerically possible seemed like a no-brainer at the time.I remain open to discussing the exact number of points, but the argument "variant humans are too weak without it" is more persuasive than "variant humans must take a crap feat". You seem to assume you MUST buy the feat right off the bat. But you don't.
Even then, saying "you don't get darkvision since you're human" or "you only get your +1's to two abilities instead of all six" are not effective balancing measures to unbreak GWM. (They have nothing to do with GWM!) Compare to, say, something like "you can't leverage advantage together with the feat", on the other hand, that's something that effectively breaks the minmaxers ability to break GWM. (Please understand it is only a crude example, not an actual suggestion)
Thank you for your contribution.
Similar Threads
