Pathfinder 1E Feats vs. Attribute Increases

[Kinak]

My normal Pathfinder group loves Pathfinder and all its options, but aren't really fans of the complexity some of those options brings. So, I'm considering taking a page out of the D&D Next playbook and having feats be exchangeable for attribute increases.

I'd like to have a feat that just says "You gain a +1 bonus to an attribute of your choice," so players can choose their own level of complexity. But I'm not really sure what the balance on that looks like.

If anyone's tried this before, I'd love to hear the results. It seems roughly balanced, assuming people aren't boosting stats they don't need, but balance can be a tricky thing.

So, what do people think? How much better or worse is the "optimal" feat for your character than an attribute bump?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[N'raac]

On the one hand, many feats give one of the main benefits from a +2 increase to a stat (Toughness springs to mind), and some give the benefits of a +4 increase (the saving throw feats, for example). With that in mind, two feats to get all the benefits of +2 in a stat passes the gut check.

On the other hand, most of those feats can't be taken repeatedly to multiply the benefits. Consider a Human who, by 12th level, has added +9 to his primary stat at the cost of all his feats. If you're OK with that, I'd say go for it and see how it works. I'm not sure I'm OK with that, so I wouldn't go ahead and see how it works.

Can Fighters take a STR bump as their bonus feat? That's +16 STR by 12th level...

 

[Ahnehnois]

The benefits vary by ability of course. Taking an INT bonus is generally the best, because of the skill points combined with the spellcasting applications. Increasing ability scores also carries some hidden benefits beyond granting bonuses to d20 rolls or the like; you're very resistant to ability damage and your scores can help you qualify for whatever feats you do take.

I'm inclined to say that allowing it is probably okay, but I'd put some kind of prerequisite/cap on it to prevent the character from wildly pumping one score or giving up on feats entirely.

 

[Kinak]

On the one hand, many feats give one of the main benefits from a +2 increase to a stat (Toughness springs to mind), and some give the benefits of a +4 increase (the saving throw feats, for example). With that in mind, two feats to get all the benefits of +2 in a stat passes the gut check.

That was about my train of thought.

On the other hand, most of those feats can't be taken repeatedly to multiply the benefits. Consider a Human who, by 12th level, has added +9 to his primary stat at the cost of all his feats. If you're OK with that, I'd say go for it and see how it works. I'm not sure I'm OK with that, so I wouldn't go ahead and see how it works.

Can Fighters take a STR bump as their bonus feat? That's +16 STR by 12th level...

I'm actually okay with people not dealing with feats at all. I'm not sure if other groups have the same problem, but we have issues with people handling class abilities effectively without even adding feats into the mix. A lot of it is the sheer number of moving parts, so I think they'd actually be more effective (and enjoy themselves more) without feats at all.

As far as the fighter bonus feats, I'd like them to be able to use them for attribute bonuses. I'm not sure if +8 to hit and +12 to damage (with a two-handed weapon) would actually be that out of line for a 20th level character.

I'm inclined to say that allowing it is probably okay, but I'd put some kind of prerequisite/cap on it to prevent the character from wildly pumping one score or giving up on feats entirely.

I'm okay with giving up on feats, as I said above, but a cap might not be out of order.

I'd considered having them be inherent bonuses (or just separately capped at +5). A chain of feats requiring increasingly higher level could work too (like 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th) to slow the progress overall.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[keterys]

It's too strong for spellcasters, unless you put in some sort of restriction. For example, limiting it to once per ability score, or taking a page from Next and limiting it to a maximum of 20 in a stat. Especially if that 20 limit doesn't stack with enhancement bonuses later.

 

[N'raac]

I think there needs to be a restriction on how much any one stat can be enhanced, at various levels and in total. A 28 INT L12 Elven Wizard (started with a 17 + 2 and used his 3 level ups and 6 feats), with +6 from a magic item, sets a save DC of 24 for a first level spell, 29 for his L6 spells.

 

[Cadence]

If you go this route, does the +1 inject too much gamesmanship because it means everyone will go for all odd abilities when they know the campaign will probably end in the low levels and go for even when they know you'll be aiming higher? The standard E6 requires a pair of feats to get a +2 and so avoids that problem (the first feat only serves as a prereq for the 2nd). In my P6 I've made the first feat in the chain give a +1 bonus to choice of skill or save based on that ability (pick it anew each day) so that the first feat isn't otherwise useless.

An easy restriction could be to limit it to no more than a total of +4 on any ability. @Kinak 's idea of having a chain of them with level restrictions seems reasonable to me too.

 

[Kinak]

It's too strong for spellcasters, unless you put in some sort of restriction. For example, limiting it to once per ability score, or taking a page from Next and limiting it to a maximum of 20 in a stat. Especially if that 20 limit doesn't stack with enhancement bonuses later.

I'd considered typing it as an enhancement bonus, but then I'm not sure what I'd do with the normal stat-booster items. I don't mind feats not stacking with buffs, but them not stacking with permanent items is much more uncomfortable.

It's sort of like the problem with keen weapons. If you know you're going to have a keen weapon, you can just never take improved critical. If you're stuck with a keen weapon and improved crit, you feel dumb. But if you're getting items crafted, having improved critical buys you +1 to hit and damage.

Maybe that doesn't bother other people as much as it bothers me.

I think there needs to be a restriction on how much any one stat can be enhanced, at various levels and in total. A 28 INT L12 Elven Wizard (started with a 17 + 2 and used his 3 level ups and 6 feats), with +6 from a magic item, sets a save DC of 24 for a first level spell, 29 for his L6 spells.

Bleh, right, spell DCs. That'd end up being a problem.

Yeah, I'll have to provide some sliding restriction like I mentioned. Which is unfortunate, because spell casters are the ones who most need the extra simplicity.

If you go this route, does the +1 inject too much gamesmanship because it means everyone will go for all odd abilities when they know the campaign will probably end in the low levels and go for even when they know you'll be aiming higher?

I'm not terribly worried about that. The attribute system in 3/Pathfinder/Next inspires a lot of weird gamesmanship when +1s are involved. Adding more +1s shouldn't make it much worse and might make it better in some cases.

An easy restriction could be to limit it to no more than a total of +4 on any ability. @Kinak 's idea of having a chain of them with level restrictions seems reasonable to me too.

Yeah, looks like a chain of feats is probably the way to go, keep people from rocketing up too fast.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[N'raac]

Yeah, looks like a chain of feats is probably the way to go, keep people from rocketing up too fast.

I'm not sure that solves your complexity issue, though.

Anyone else remember 3e Epic feats that bumped a stat 1 point?

 

[Kinak]

I'm not sure that solves your complexity issue, though.

It's mostly complexity in play, so should be okay either way.

That said, it's also tempting to kill several birds with one stone and nerf Save DCs (say, to 10 + attribute bonus). But that would probably have a lot of other knock-on effects.

Anyone else remember 3e Epic feats that bumped a stat 1 point?

Not I, but my only post-20 campaign was 2nd Edition, so that's not too surprising!

Cheers!
Kinak