Feat Points

[CapnZapp]

Thanks for stating your goal, that makes it easy to evaluate in that context.

I think this works well. A few questions or comments but overall I'm positive to this.

Thank you.

What is the purpose of being able to spend every other level?

Reduced analysis paralysis...? You're right, if there aren't any actual non-corner cases it can be removed.

I'm assuming that's even class level

Class level yes indeed.

Rogues get less and slower bonus ASI then fighters, would it make sense to have them get a bonus on a level divided by three?

To be honest I don't think Rogues are so good, so I didn't bother complicating things.

This seems a big boon to multiclassing, since they lose nothing not aiming for ASI levels - as a matter of fact except for spellcasters since ASI levels are now dead it encourages cherry-picking 1-3 levels. This I'd want to address somehow.

True.

Technically you should gain 4 feat points every four class levels. Or only be allowed to spend feat points at certain levels.

But to be frank, that would kill the elegance - it would make the whole houserule fall apart IMO.

I don't have a solution. Maybe accept that if this change in multiclassing is unacceptable to a certain DM this houserule might not be right for him or her. To other DMs this is not a bug - in fact, to some DMs it is a desirable fix (not that I intended it as such).

 

[Horwath]

To be honest, greatweapon master and sharpshooter are great feats, but they are NOT worth 2 feats. Not even close.

I get that many people are iritated by those two feats but double cost? No!

I would suggest a little more balanced scale:

ASI: +1 to any ability; 2pts. You could make 19->20 worth 3 pts.

Feat: 4pts.

Good feat: 5pts(GMW, PAM, SS, CE)

Bad feat: 3pts(skilled, grappler, tavernbrawler, linguist, dungeon delver, skulker, observant, dual wielder, keen mind, charger, mounted combat, savage attacker, weapon master, athlete, actor, durable, armor prof feats, medium armor master, elemental adept)

 

[CapnZapp]

To be honest, greatweapon master and sharpshooter are great feats, but they are NOT worth 2 feats. Not even close.

I get that many people are iritated by those two feats but double cost? No!

I would suggest a little more balanced scale:

ASI: +1 to any ability; 2pts. You could make 19->20 worth 3 pts.

Feat: 4pts.

Good feat: 5pts(GMW, PAM, SS, CE)

Bad feat: 3pts(skilled, grappler, tavernbrawler, linguist, dungeon delver, skulker, observant, dual wielder, keen mind, charger, mounted combat, savage attacker, weapon master, athlete, actor, durable, armor prof feats, medium armor master, elemental adept)

We need to discuss what you believe my reasons for creating this are.

Let me state my goals and you can then say how that differs from what you thought my goals were.

My goal is to actually change the way the game is played. To be blunt, a feat such as GWM needs to be heavily discouraged.

Every time a player goes GWM "NOT worth 2 feats. Not even close." or GWM "Double Cost? No!" and instead opts for the other choices that's a victory for the system, not a defeat.

The point isn't to slightly penalize but generally keep GWM:ers around. The point is to drastically cull the number of GWM:ers.

The point is to make other feats see usage. This only happens if players actually change their choices.

(The point is also to not have to ban or houserule the actual feats)

I fear your counter-proposal would change so little... I would honestly have to ask why even bother to houserule at all, I'm afraid, Horwath.

 

[Horwath]

We need to discuss what you believe my reasons for creating this are.

Let me state my goals and you can then say how that differs from what you thought my goals were.

My goal is to actually change the way the game is played. To be blunt, a feat such as GWM needs to be heavily discouraged.

Every time a player goes GWM "NOT worth 2 feats. Not even close." or GWM "Double Cost? No!" and instead opts for the other choices that's a victory for the system, not a defeat.

The point isn't to slightly penalize but generally keep GWM:ers around. The point is to drastically cull the number of GWM:ers.

The point is to make other feats see usage. This only happens if players actually change their choices.

(The point is also to not have to ban or houserule the actual feats)

I fear your counter-proposal would change so little... I would honestly have to ask why even bother to houserule at all, I'm afraid, Horwath.

I understand your goals, then just BAN GWM and SS or change them. Having them cost 2 feats is exactly the same as baning them, you just don't say it exclusively.

There is no debate in +4 str or GWM. Math is 100% on +4 str side. Even with +2 str vs. GWM, +2 str is better vs higher AC monsters.

 

[dave2008]

There is no debate in +4 str or GWM. Math is 100% on +4 str side.

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

 

[Horwath]

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

Mostly agree, but this is not the topic of this thread.

But if a players has two options that he can take and both describe the character he wants to create, they will take the better one.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It might be worth thinking about allowing players to spend feat points to buy skill or even save proficiencies directly, without going via buying full feats.

 

[TwoSix]

There is no debate in +4 str or GWM. Math is 100% on +4 str side. Even with +2 str vs. GWM, +2 str is better vs higher AC monsters.

While true, that does neglect the fact that GWM/SS stack with 20 Str/Dex. The weight of the choice simply forces you to change prioritization, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

Increasing the price also keeps them away from optimizers but leaves them available for concept-centered roleplayers, which I think is a perfectly reasonable decision to make.

I also favor houserules that let me PCs realize concepts at lower levels, so the optional rules to purchase concept feats at lower levels, and the fact the system subtly encourages 1-3 level multiclass dips, seem more like features to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The real point to take away from this system isn't to quibble over the "cost" of the various feats... every DM should know what feats are unbalanced for their particular table (either over or under) and can adjust costs appropriately... but whether the system accomplishes what it is meant to accomplish.

In my opinion based on past experiences with other systems that had "point costs" for various things during the expenditure of XP... this will probably work well. I am reminded of 7th Sea 1st edition, where your XP could be spent various ways... low-cost to level a single knack (skill), larger cost to buy new backgrounds, and very large costs to level up your ability scores. And it was always a question we had to ask ourselves between each session: Do we spend a couple points now to boost a knack that we think is going to possibly be important in the next session or two... or do we just hoard our XP and wait the four, five, six sessions until we can finally spend them to boost an ability score (but which will them apply much more often across the board to all applicable knacks and other rolls.) The whole "delayed gratification" conundrum.

This system for feats accomplishes the same thing. Do you take a quick 2 point feat when the points are available because they are cheap and "ready now", or do you hold off for four, six, eight levels to finally get that "big gun" of a feat that has more oomph, but for which you get nothing up until then? It's a major decision.

In fact... it's along the same lines as people who try and put together "uber-builds" that are grossly overpowered (as overpowered as 5E can truly be) but for which all the multiclassing and whatnot doesn't allow it to truly come "online" until character level 12 or something. And it begs the question whether you really want to slog through 11 levels of the character not working very well just for the switch to finally get flipped when you reach 12? Just how delayed are you willing to make your gratification?

 

[CapnZapp]

I understand your goals, then just BAN GWM and SS or change them. Having them cost 2 feats is exactly the same as baning them, you just don't say it exclusively.

There is no debate in +4 str or GWM. Math is 100% on +4 str side. Even with +2 str vs. GWM, +2 str is better vs higher AC monsters.

Since this thread is about offering an alternative to banning (or house rule changing) them, I'm not sure what to say...

Your other points have already been addressed by other posters.