• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Is Expanding Feats the Answer?

Well, what you are describing is in many ways my answer, but I doubt it is the answer because there is probably more than one way to do it.

While I'm not purist for system, the basic idea is that a class is defined by the collections of bonus feats available to them and the rate at which they progress in the acquisition of these feats. Some feats are so archetypal that they are restricted to the class, but most feats could be chosen by any class only not at the rate which another class could acquire them.

This is not that different from having a 4e style 'powers' system, only that comparitively few powers are siloed to a particular class. Instead, there is a large pool of general powers available to everyone, and subpools of the general powers that are class defining. While pretty much everyone could dip into a subpool, they can't dip as often as the class whose schtick is defined by that subpool. And on top of that, you have a few class specific powers that aren't shared save by multiclassing.

The idea behind my design was to avoid the massive proliferation of classes that was seen in 3e. In particular, I saw all PrC's as essentially being a particular collection of feats which you could only take in a predefined order and only if you adopted a particular flavor and in some cases even personality for your character. Additionally, I saw all PrC's - at least all PrC's likely to be taken - as being essentially a class that got more feats per level than the base class. Finally, most PrC's had the problem of being front loaded so that entry into the class immediately allowed you fulfil that classes 'schtick'. I didn't see the PrC as increasing player choice, but restricting it, and indeed not only restricting choice but also encouraging a rigid mechanical design rather than designing to a novel character concept. If you wanted to design to concept, it required cludging together PrC's in ways that required excessive system mastery. I wanted to avoid all of that, so I transformed powers into feats, increased the accessibility of feats, reduced front loading, and dropped all PrC's. My alternate system has been described by one of my players as, "You don't take a PrC in [Celebrim's] game; you become one."

One of the things I learned over time is that I didn't have to confine feats to simple number modifiers that added one static bonus or enhancement. Nor did I have to have feats that merely allowed you to take some combat action. In fact, I disliked the later in particular, preferring to define a wide range of combat manuevers and then have feats that made you better in them. Simple number modifiers could be fine, but they tended to pale for higher end feats. The solution IMO was to combine several weak number modifiers into a feat that encompassed a defining schtick. The 3.5 era 'Tactical' feats were great in concept, but tended to suck in implmentation. The other thing you could do was have number modifiers that scaled in level. 'Toughness' is a great example of a feat that ought to have been scaling from the beginning. Pretty much anything that a class ability can do can be turned into a feat, and indeed even a entire class can be defined as a feat. For example, I have one feat that substatially alters your hit points gained per level, BAB, base saving throws, and even skill points gained. You take the feat, and you basically are taking one class and substituting it for a rather different one. Granted, that's an unusual case, but it shows how extensively a feat can rewrite the nature of your character.

Now, you could get a lot more purist in the system than I have. You could make every single class ability optional and configurable. I've only gone part of that way because I think that as it approaches pure point buy you are likely to see too much min-maxing with narrowly defined characters instead of the broadly capable ones you want out of a class system, but I've seen reasonable attempts at it.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

My "snarky response nevertheless with a point" is that when it comes to D&D, "expanding feats" is never the correct answer, regardless of the question. :p

If the game is remaining class/level based, then I suspect it would actually be better to remove feats entirely. Have players pick a race/class/theme combination and then customise their character using powers.

If the game is effectively becoming a point-buy system, then your notion of expanding the feats is quite a neat way to do that, without the system becoming very fiddly.

My more serious answer is identical to what delericho already said.
 

If the game is remaining class/level based, then I suspect it would actually be better to remove feats entirely. Have players pick a race/class/theme combination and then customise their character using powers.

I already view feats to *be* powers, or a sort. What's wrong with having a couple different categories of powers, that characters might gain at different rates and times?

If the game is effectively becoming a point-buy system, then your notion of expanding the feats is quite a neat way to do that, without the system becoming very fiddly.

I see nothing in expanding feats that would prevent the system from becoming fiddly. Quite the opposite, if you are expanding the variety of things feats can do, and the breadth of their coverage. You will very shortly find your game supplements filled with heaping tons of feats, and how they interact and stack could be extremely fiddly indeed.

Which isn't to say you can't make a good game out of a game that's a smorgasbord of feats, but it could very easily be a darned fiddly thing, depending on the details of how feats are written.
 

Imagine you are playing Savage Worlds.

I do play SW :)

Actually, while reading the original post, my thought was that there are already too many feats for my tastes and the designers should both cut back the number of feats and look at Savage Worlds for a better implementation (imo).
 

My "snarky response nevertheless with a point" is that when it comes to D&D, "expanding feats" is never the correct answer, regardless of the question. :p

My "snarky response nevertheless with a point" is that when it comes to D&D, "expanding classes/class variants" is never the correct answer, regardless of the question. If you can't cover all possible concepts while keeping classes below 15 or so (at most!) including all variants, you are misdesigning your classes by making them too inflexible or making multiclassing too difficult. Adding a new class is a kludge.

Technically, you could probably get away with as few as 3 classes, but I find some comprimise system that avoids purity of design tends to work better in practice.

Likewise, an ever growing list of "class powers" is almost always better as a smaller list of feats, if only because in the long term its going to be a much more compact rules set.

The only advantage in having an ever growing list of classes with powers not shared between them, is it allows you to print more and more increasingly redundant material in the form of splatbooks - which might make short term economic sense even if it is bad for your game long term.

And that is also my serious response.
 

I see nothing in expanding feats that would prevent the system from becoming fiddly. Quite the opposite, if you are expanding the variety of things feats can do, and the breadth of their coverage. You will very shortly find your game supplements filled with heaping tons of feats, and how they interact and stack could be extremely fiddly indeed.

Indeed. I'll say that the trade off in feats as defining attributes of your game can be fiddliness. If you've got 15-20 feats each modifying what your character is or can do in 1-3 ways then you have a ton of potential interaction and modifiers to remember. So yeah, you get fiddliness; I'll attest to it from actual experience.

However, in my opinion its relatively less fiddly than a system which depends on temporary buffs, debuffs, conditions and boosts of various sorts because much of the cost in fiddliness is paid at design time rather than 'run time' provided that the player precomputes the final modifiers, and because you you have less to track during combat as those modifiers are changing relatively less often.

That's part of why I've refrained from creating feats that provide 'encounter' or 'daily powers', which typically has been the path many designers took to enhance feats (Monte's 'Might' series being one example). I didn't want to add that problem on top of the problem that spell buffs already create.

Still, D&D is inherently a fiddly system and lots of feats does little to make it less fiddly. If you don't want fiddly, run a stripped down system... and then loose a great deal of D&D's the environment/choices/tactics matter and differentiate that comes with tracking those all those fiddly choices mechanically. It's all tradeoffs. There is no perfect system.
 

This reads a lot like a game that isn't D&D, basically a point-buy system.

Which might be fine, but why not just play GURPS or some other point-buy system? This would no longer be D&D imho.

As far as the basic question, "Is expanding feats the answer," I don't think so, because that really means "Is EVEN MORE option overload the answer?"
 

However, in my opinion its relatively less fiddly than a system which depends on temporary buffs, debuffs, conditions and boosts of various sorts because much of the cost in fiddliness is paid at design time rather than 'run time' provided that the player precomputes the final modifiers, and because you you have less to track during combat as those modifiers are changing relatively less often.

I don't see how that works out. Feats as the basic unit of character building and temporary modifiers in play are independent, orthogonal. I can build a system in which characters are built with feats - and those feats give ability to temporarily buff, debuff, boost, and inflict conditions!
 

I don't see how that works out. Feats as the basic unit of character building and temporary modifiers in play are independent, orthogonal. I can build a system in which characters are built with feats - and those feats give ability to temporarily buff, debuff, boost, and inflict conditions!

Agreed. Which is why I said, "That's part of why I've refrained from creating feats that provide 'encounter' or 'daily powers', which typically has been the path many designers took to enhance feats (Monte's 'Might' series being one example)."

Feats as they first appeared in 3e and as they largely are in the SRD are static enhancments to character prowess of some sort, and by using the word 'feat' I tend to mean confining them to that traditional role. They obviously could be expanded to include granting temporary boosts and so forth, and some people took that route in order to try to balance feats better with spells, but I deliberately avoided going that way for the reasons I outlined. However, I do think that the feat can and should be expanded beyond its small role in determining character and into a larger one, I was just noting that unlike many designers who had tried to expand the role of the feat, my inclination was not to make them limited use powers.

While I'm at it:

I already view feats to *be* powers, or a sort. What's wrong with having a couple different categories of powers, that characters might gain at different rates and times?

Nothing. I view powers and abilities to be feats of a sort, and essentially I do have several different categories of feats that characters might gain at different rates and times. Indeed, I could probably define even the things I haven't defined as feats already, as feats, as for example a thieves special abilities, the cleric's domains, the champion's portfolio powers, and the fanatic's benefits of fanaticism could all be treated as feats - and would be if I thought I'd gain anything from it.

The problem with reversing this view point, and viewing feats as powers, is that powers are not normally shared across classes at all. While this strongly silo's the classes/character's schtick, it results in a situation where you often find yourself needing to create a new class which has a set of available powers somewhere between and partly sharing the design space of the neighboring clases. In my opinion, both 4e and Pathfinder are guilty of relying too heavily on the power or variant in place of feat model, resulting in situations where you write out more rules in order to give the player less choice. While some of that may be necessary to avoid min-maxing, in many cases - like Pathfinder's fighter variant class powers - its closed design for no particular good reason.* If you'd like to play a 10th level Arminger**/10th level Archer**, why should you need to argue for multiclassing a class with itself, rather than dipping into two combat feat trees which the general fighter class is given improved access to?

(*not trying to edition war here. I respect the PF designers quite a lot actually)

(**not necessarily the names of real variants, but hopefully you get my point anyway)
 
Last edited:

Also trying to avoid edition warring here :)

I don't think 3.x and 4e feats can cover the same ground. 4e class abilities and powers cover a lot of the ground that 3.x feats should have covered, IMO. In the 3.x space, class feats are almost desperately needed, and not the boring old "Greater Weapon Specialization" static numerical bonus-style feat either.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top