2 feats, 200gp, to good?

[Claudius Gaius]

A couple of extra feats aren't especially overwhelming, but they are very useful to everyone in the world - and if they're relatively easy to train for, almost everyone should have them. If they're very difficult to train for, they're worth a lot more than 200 GP. It seems like you need a much stronger background reason for the characters to be special. Perhaps only the extremely talented can even get into the "adventurer's academy", or its heavily subsidized to train up the next generation of rulers and nobles, or some such.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I would say that 500-750GP per feat (with the freedom to choose 0, 1 or 2) is more reasonable.

750 might work out OK. Then, you have either 2000GP as is, 1250GP and a feat, or 500GP and 2 feats. Could be a tricky choice then, depending. And that is the way I would prefer it, by far. If I was going to do this kind of thing in the first place. Which I wouldn't, because - apart from anything else - I give out feats more frequently, including an extra 'background feat' (a specific type) at 1st level. . . so it's already covered, basically.

But yeah, if I had to, I would increase the price, for sure.

 

[Slife]

I think it's a bad idea.

What will probably happen is every single sensible player will take the 2 extra feats, they will not really care about the adventurer schooling you're trying to convey with these bonuses, you will end up with problematic PCs who can qualify for things before they should, and it will complicate your job as a DM for no good reason.

I recommend finding a way to convey the plot points of your setting without such strong game mechanic incentives.

Meh, it's about the same as allowing flaws, and those don't mess up the balance too significantly. Most qualifications for PrCs and stuff for spellcasters need skill points over feats to determine level, but feat trees (which fighters are highly invested in) need a lot of feats.