Marionnen's Musings: Featless?

[Loonook]

I played and started DMing in 2e, and I just do not get this mindset. Is it just flavor? Seems kind of restrictive. (It's why I avoid grim and gritty campaigns. Fun only for the DM.)

Not really. Having run g&g with that type of restriction? Players like it. When you have to work for spells. Duelling the firecaller for access to new pyromancy, working with an apprentice and realizing 'wait, if I channel just so I can do...' and learning something new is fun. There's also a lot of flavor built up when each wizard doesn't just spam the same 5-6 refluffed effects. Also...

Is it about game balance? Because I think that's a terrible way of doing it. If a spell is overpowered or troublesome, rewrite or ban it. Never giving a wizard a scroll of Rope Trick seems a poor way of "balancing" the spell.

If you provide a single use for a spell or a 'once in a lifetime' alteration of a spell due to a wild magic area, specific star alignment, whathaveyou? It makes it interesting. A magic rope that is imbued by a fakir in an Arabian market, or a box that allows access to a dead mage's sanctum for a few hours can serve as a Rope Trick 'scroll'. Just a matter of flair.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[airwalkrr]

I played and started DMing in 2e, and I just do not get this mindset. Is it just flavor? Seems kind of restrictive. (It's why I avoid grim and gritty campaigns. Fun only for the DM.)

Is it about game balance? Because I think that's a terrible way of doing it. If a spell is overpowered or troublesome, rewrite or ban it. Never giving a wizard a scroll of Rope Trick seems a poor way of "balancing" the spell.

If I have to explain, you'll probably never understand. I could go into a long discussion about this very subject, but I will instead be brief for now and say that the rewards that come from playing a wizard where you legitimately earn your spells through quests and adventures is much more satisfying than when you just pick whatever you want when you level up. Spells are so powerful, even in 3.5, that they are deserving of effort.

Perhaps I'll devote a future blog post to the subject.

Now onto the non-fighter classes. Would rogues get Weapon Finesse for free?

Would specialist wizards get Spell Focus for their school? Etc.

No and no. I think you are missing the point. No one gets feats because you don't really need them. Rogues don't need Weapon Finesse. I've seen plenty of rogues played without it, probably more than with it. Wizards don't need Spell Focus either. Feats are a way of tweaking your character to be slightly more powerful in one area. If you aim (as I do) to run a simpler, more streamlined game, such tweaking is unnecessary. My theory is the game works just fine without it.

Remember: monsters don't get feats either. It balances things out.

 

[N'raac]

If we remove the Wizard's 2 free spells when he levels up, why not retain feats, but require you find an appropriate trainer, or otherwise obtain these new abilities, through quests and adventure. Let's do the same for all character abilities. Clerics want access to a second level spell or two? Go on a quest and earn it. Fighter wants to learn to wield a Bastard Sword with one hand? Duel a master to persuade him to train you.

I think one of the big changes in 3.0 was providing more ability to customize characters, including specific rules for how many spells the Wizard would receive even if the GM decided to never allow him to find any while adventuring. That customization was, to me, a response to complaints that "every character of this class is identical". Removal of feats reduces that customization, but will certainly simplify character creation and progression.

An alternative to "run a simpler, more streamlined game" would be to pre-design feat progressions for all classes, much like pre-designing chains for those classes which get bonus feats. The choices could be hardwired (eg. "At Level 6, all Fighters gain +2 to Will saves"), provide a bit of choice (eg. "At Level 6, all Fighters gain +2 to one save of their choice") or provide full choice (as present - pick any feat for which you meet the prerequisites).

As for removing the monsters' feats as well, does that mean Constrictors lose Improved Grab? Just the thought of revising all their stats to pull out feats like the save enhancers is daunting - removal of Improved Grab, Multiattack, Fly By Attack, etc. etc. sounds like I just agreed to completely rewrite all the monster books to save my players the agony of some character customization.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am of the opinion that removing the level based feats (1-3-6-etc) would make the Fighter's bonus feats stronger and make multiclassing into fighter a stronger option. It would also hurt (powerwise) classes like the cleric and wizard.

The question that pops up in my mind is how this will affect classes like the Rogue, Ranger and Paladin. I think they will become weaker and you will see a lot more multiclassing into Fighter.

Another problem is the prestige classes with feat requirements. Part of these requirements were a "tax" that also made the characters different mechanically.

.... and I wouldn't bother rewriting the monsters. As noted above it would just make a mess out of monsters that rely on key feats like improved grab.

 

[airwalkrr]

Well I completely agree with you on the training aspect. I love the idea of training to earn abilities and try to use it as much as my players will allow in all my campaigns. I like the idea of players having a name level mentor or master to tie them to the setting.

Improved Grab is not a feat, but a special ability. There is no need to touch those. Multiattack and other feats that grant a +1 here or a +2 there are not that big a deal and require no revision. Just assume they are a special ability of the monster. The power they contribute to monsters is minimal (and if you feel the need to balance this somehow with players just give them all +1 to attack and +1 to saving throws). Feats like Flyby Attack are a great example of why this change to feats is a great idea for those (like me) who just want to run a simple game sometimes. They add complexity to monsters and can just be ignored for a simpler game. I have thought about this quite a bit and there is really no need to re-write anything. In practically every entry in the monster manual all I need to do is cut out the feat block and pretend it isn't there. Everything else stays the way it is. That's the beauty of it.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

If the want is to make things simpler in the end then this might work, but with the complexity and tediousness of rewriting the entire system to do that and keep some decent level of customization I don't think it's worth it. As mentioned, part of the fun of it for some (including me to a degree) is going through the feats to find interesting things to make the character also interesting. Take away the ability to customize and finely tune the character in the way feats do and it takes away a significant amount of enjoyment for the game in my eyes. Sure I can see some people having more fun at first with fewer choices but eventually they're going to feel railroaded because they want to do something that can't be done.

I can definitely understand why WoW is comparatively railraoding since it's an MMORPG that does need fairly strict balancing, but D&D tabletop isn't like that because it's meant to let people do what they think is awesome although I admit that often what looks awesome doesn't quite work due to being outdone by other more "optimal" stuff.

About the only way I can see getting rid of feats but keeping things interesting is turning some of the feats like Knockback into maneuvers a la Tome of Battle, or allowing such things as a base combat maneuver in the first place.

There does need to be some way for a character to learn something on his own though since having an ability only come through training from another leads to the question of who taught the trainer. And that's a choice I'd give the players probably. "Developing this on your own will take X time and resources. Questing and getting someone to train you in it will take Y time and resources probably. Which do you choose?"

 

[airwalkrr]

You make some good points, Jack. And clearly this rule is not meant for everyone. For games with players who see customizing their character as half (or more) of the fun, this would defeat the purpose of the game. But for those who like a simpler game but prefer the internally consistent mechanics of 3.5 to those of AD&D, I believe this would work well.

I do take issue with the notion that this would require a re-write of the whole system. Having looked at this from many angles and thought about it for about two years now I really do think you can just ignore feats and the game will work just fine. And you don't even have to cut out feats completely (for players at least). One thing DMs could do is make feats a reward for completing a quest. For example, after the PCs have defeated the drow invaders, the Cormyrian War Wizards agree to teach the party wizard the Maximize Spell feat. Gaining feats could even become the focus of a quest. For example, the Paladin has heard of a great sage who is capable of teaching others how to channel positive energy in different ways, and can teach the paladin the Divine Ward feat. You could use the guidelines in the DMG for training costs to determine how long such training would take and how much it would cost. Some good ideas there.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You pretty much want D&D Lite, yes? It seems more likely that you'd get a better result by building it from the ground up than by cutting and tweaking already existing aspects of D&D, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Votan]

You pretty much want D&D Lite, yes? It seems more likely that you'd get a better result by building it from the ground up than by cutting and tweaking already existing aspects of D&D, but that's just my opinion.

Or maybe using an earlier edition or one of the light d20 games (Blue Rose/Castles and Crusades)

 

[airwalkrr]

I want D&D Lite, but I also want it to be 3.5 For the most part there is nothing wrong with monsters, races, and character classes. If you leave the details to those things, the idea is that I could still use my vast 3.5 library minus some of the fiddly bits. (Spells could use some simplifying, but that's for another discussion.)