Buying Feats with XP

[jdrakeh]

First, I think you should be fair... your review is really for Point Buy Numbers. . .

Well, to be really fair, I didn't make any attempt to hide that fact That said, I have the same issues with both systems. PBN is the greater offender because, as you point out, it's a hatchet job -- more specifically, its most problematic elements (mentioned in the review) are borrowed almost verbatim from BTN without any attempt to rectify them. This is unforgiveable, really. I was probably too kind when I gave it three stars. From the review that you cite:

One interesting thing that the author does at the end is show how much experience it would cost to use this system and progress just like the base classes do. The classes are not equal and the levels are not equal.

The emphasis is mine. This is the same major issue that I take with PBN where XP progression is concerned and it exists there specifically because that author largely cut and pasted it from BTN.

Scattered throughout the text are numerous alternatives and suggestions on how to handle various things and what some of those effects might be.

This is true, though the deviation from standard d20 XP progression and the other issues that I mention in the previous review are never fixed. I simply prefer the Eclipse method as it means that I can use the standard XP progression of existing d20 System games, the corresponding CRs, and other tightly integrated elements without the excessive handwaving that the implementaion of a non-standard XP progression makes necessary.

BtN only really claims to be trying to let folks go really wild in making their character be _exactly_ what they want. It's also built from the standard d20 rules, and not d20 Modern like Point Buy Numbers was supposedly adapted for.

All true, though the fact that it throws standard d20 XP progression to the wind really cripples its utility for anybody concerned with maintaining the mechanical balance in their games that the D&D/d20 design team worked so hard to implement.

C'mon, Buy the Numbers was Nominated for a 2005 ENnie Award... it's got to have some redeeming features.

Again, to be fair, I never said that it didn't have redeeming features. I'm simply saying that it's far from flawless and pointed out what I consider to be its serious drawbacks (also present in PBN). If maintining the carefully crafted mechanical balance of standard d20 System products isn't a concern, then both BTN and PBN are decent point buy alternatives. If that is a concern, then both BTN and PBN will drive you nuts. Trust me

 

[Baron Opal]

IMC I have "null levels". the point of these were to give players the option to acquire extra feats or skill points if they wanted to boost their characters a little. It also had the side effect of slowing down advancement a little.

Each null level consisted of a feat, 4 + Int bonus skill points and 2 + Con bonus hit points. I priced this at 300 xp for the first level, 600 xp for the second, 900 for the third and so on. You are allowed to buy one null level for each character level.

You still have to meet all requirements for feats, and skill rank totals are still limited by character level. Null levels do not adjust character levels.

My players bought about 2-3 null levels over 8 character levels. the first two were at levels 2 and 3. Some bought another one at level 6-7. Part of the concept was that I was having the PCs "multiclass" with a class that had no class abilities and added no BAB, saves or stacked with pre-existing class abilities. I think it worked well. The hardcore rules-monkeys still only bought 2-3 levels. The character that didn't buy any was a full level ahead of the one that bought 3 null levels, which was my goal.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

IMC I have "null levels". the point of these were to give players the option to acquire extra feats or skill points if they wanted to boost their characters a little. It also had the side effect of slowing down advancement a little.

This is a really neat system. However, in this system you'd really be a fool to not take the null levels - at least two of them. Well, assuming that you use the 3.5 standard for handing out XP, that is. Because at level 11 you make up exactly 300 XP just because you happen to be a level behind! (Assuming an average CR encounter) Of course that number get smaller as you approach level 1 and larger as you approach level 20.

My point, though, is that due to the d20 experience rules rewarding characters who are behind in level compared to a CR encounter for the rest of the party ... a smart player could time their acquisition of null level so that it doesn't really cost them anything. They'dget a null level and almost immediately be back up to the party's current XP count. [This is assuming most people don't take them]

If most people do take the null levels, then it is smart to take them just so that you stay at or near their XP total. Otherwise, you'll be the guy jumping out front and allowing everyone else to use the rules to catch back up to you!

Either way, it is a neat idea. Don't think that this critique doesn't at the very least appreciate the idea. I'm just showing one glaring place that it is ripe for abuse by an intelligent player who knows the experience acquisition rules.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

The emphasis is mine. This is the same major issue that I take with PBN where XP progression is concerned and it exists there specifically because that author largely cut and pasted it from BTN.

True. Vwery True. Which is one of the reasons that I said my group has tweaked the numbers a little bit.

However, We can't also forget that in many cases the core classes aren't balanced out to 20 levels. In many cases (the cleric and druid come to mind) they cost more to buiold than what a 20th level character has experience. But at the same time, I am also one of the people who are in agreement that these are two of the most powerful classes in the game. So the fact that they cost more is acceptable. The one huge example that does stick out like a sore thumb is the monk. Under the Buy the Numbers system, the monk is horribly over-priced. And by horribly, I confess I really mean outrageously.

I've typically found that classes with loads of class abilities that require a "caster level" or "class level" check to make them function are prone to being hosed by the Buy the Numbers system. It is alright for a class to have even 5 or 6 such abilities. But the monk gets one at elast every other level. That just drives the cost of playing a monk too high. This is one of the areas that my group has done the most work with ... and we've fixed it as best we can.

In the end, though - the monk excluded - the differential among the classes largely follows several given assumptions about power among the classes. YMMV, though!

 

[evilbob]

The major problem with both proposals (250*Level or Flat 5000xp) is that the value of a feat is not static.

In the first case, you'll see characters front-loading feats like mad to get all the low-level prereqs for the feats they want later out of the way.

OTOH, Toughness will never, ever be worth 5000xp. At a cost of 5000xp you will see players spending XP to gain feats just about as often as you see them spend the XP to cast Wish; which means just about never.

I disagree with these ideas.

Sure, you may have some players grab certain feats in order to purchase others and buy feats a certain way, but this happens all the time without purchasing feats for XP. Planning character progression is a big part of D&D for many people. I don't think this disproportionally favors those folks, nor does it encourage min/maxing any more than the standard rules. 5k XP is a steep price, but it works for those who are willing to pay it to have more feats.

As for the Toughness example: what you really mean is, "Toughness will never, ever be worth a feat." No one gets Toughness now, and no one will get it for 5k XP, either - that's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with the feat. Are some feats worth more than others? Sure they are. Do the feats prereqs and other factors all come into play to make them balanced out? If they're well-written, they do. Just because you can purchase a feat for 5k XP at level 6 doesn't mean you're going to get Greater Weapon Focus any faster (in fact, it means you'll take longer to get it, since you're leveling slower).


As I said before, the idea of purchasing feats for XP still seems like an interesting one. Controlling unchecked player expenditure is the issue. I like the idea that you can only purchase as many extra feats as you have levels (or hit dice, one might say). That does a good and simple job of keeping it contained. The only real problem left - in my opinion - is how to balance the guy who bought 3 feats and is a level or more behind and is gaining MORE XP per encounter than the guy who didn't buy any feats. Not sure how to handle this mechanically, since it seems to favor those who buy feats.

 

[evilbob]

Here's a weird idea:

What if, instead of paying for feats with existing XP, you did something that was sort of the reverse of that? What if, when you turned level 6, you could purchase a feat, but it caused your "next level" to cost 5000 more XP? In other words, you would need 11,000 more XP to get to level 7 instead of 6000 more XP. Your new total for your next level would be 26,000 XP.

This solves the problem of getting to a level and spending 5k XP, which can't really be done because you're falling back to the previous level (i.e. you couldn't really purchase a feat using the above criteria until you were level 7, since you'd need to "be level 6" and also have at least 5k XP). And it's relatively easy for bookkeeping: you just change one number on your sheet and it's easy to re-calculate (1. how many feats do you have? 2. add 5k to your "next level" for each feat more than you should have via normal leveling up). It doesn't solve the whole "still getting more XP for being a lower level" thing, though.

 

[Aegir]

As for the Toughness example: what you really mean is, "Toughness will never, ever be worth a feat." No one gets Toughness now, and no one will get it for 5k XP, either - that's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with the feat.

While I'd agree that Toughness is probably one of the worst feats in the game (the worst in all likelihood), I think E6 makes it more valuable, because the value of individual feat slots decreases (since you get so many), while the value of HP drastically increases (you get 6 HD, thats it).

Even so, I'd change Toughness to a combination of Imp. Toughness and AE's "Sturdy", which basically translates to "Con mod x2 or +1hp/HD, whichever is greater."

The only real problem left - in my opinion - is how to balance the guy who bought 3 feats and is a level or more behind and is gaining MORE XP per encounter than the guy who didn't buy any feats. Not sure how to handle this mechanically, since it seems to favor those who buy feats.

While using the XP system as-is, there really isn't a simple way, short of declaring X number of bonus feats equals +1 LA for purposes of XP gain (thus you don't get bonus XP for being behind in level).

Still, I prefer the system I use, which is effectively to separate "normal" XP (adventuring/encounters/etc) from bonus XP (RP/Char Dev/etc), and providing several uses for the bonus XP (primarily exchange for Action/Hero points, XP component in spells, "repairing" cohorts (replacing NPC classes with PC), and at the extreme end, extra class levels). Adding "buy feats" to that wouldn't really disrupt anything.

 

[Pyrex]

I disagree with these ideas... 5k XP is a steep price, but it works for those who are willing to pay it to have more feats... Controlling unchecked player expenditure is the issue... Not sure how to handle this mechanically, since it seems to favor those who buy feats.

Not sure we're quite connecting here, so let me try again.

There are some problems with purchasing feats with XP, here are my main issues:
1) Not all feats are created equal.

This is just a given. Power Attack is a stronger feat than Toughness.​

2) Not all feats are as strong at all levels.

A first level wizard can take Quicken Spell, but it's completely useless until at least caster level 7​

3) Linear costs for feats aren't reasonable.

500xp/feat is really expensive at 1st or 2nd level, but chump change at 10th. 5000xp is hugely expensive even at 20th level, but is a drop in the bucket at 40th.​

4) Simply scaling the costs doesn't work either, because it just encourages front-loading.

Any system where a feat costs k*CurrentLevel won't work because players will just buy as many feats as possible as early as possible because the currently-low XP cost will have become meaningless 4-5 levels down the road.​

Given 1-4 above, that suggests that any cost system for buying feats needs to be not only Scaled, but almost certainly Progressive and probably with a short-term multiplicative component.

For Example:
-- Scaling: Each Feat costs 20% of your current level --> CurrentLevel*200xp
-- Scaling + Progressive: Each additional feat costs an additional 10% --> CurrentLevel*(BonusFeats*100xp + 200xp)
-- Scaling + Progressive + Short Term: Each additional feat this level costs a further 10% --> CurrentLevel*(BonusFeats*100xp + BonusFeatsThisLevel*100xp + 200xp)

This way every time you purchase a feat it has a significant cost at that moment. Also, each successive feat is more expensive than the last, and buying lots of feats really quickly costs more and more XP.

Front-loading is *still* an option, but could be discouraged by increasing the ShortTerm multiplier.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Given 1-4 above, that suggests that any cost system for buying feats needs to be not only Scaled, but almost certainly Progressive and probably with a short-term multiplicative component.

For example, take this chart:

Cost(XP)  Extra Feat purchased
4000      1st
4400      2nd
5060      3rd
6072      4th
7590      5th
9867      6th
13321     7th
18650     8th
27043     9th
40565     10th

[Sblock=Formula for those who are curious]

X + (X)(Y)(.05) , where:

X = the previous cost or 4,000 in the case of the first feat
Y = the bonus feat number (IE 2 for a characters second bonus feat)[/Sblock]

Although personally I'd clean up the numbers so that they are at least an even hundred.


Here you have scaling, but since it isn't based on class level front loading isn't really as relevant. Plus, a scale like this puts an automatic cap on when you can have extra feats. What I mean is that you can't get that first extra feat until you are at a level where you have 4000 XP to spare without leveling. I suppose a person could just choose no to level in order to get a bonus feat, too. But either way you are putting in a natural cap.

The problem with this system is what I said in an earlier post and what evilbob brought up. The current D&D system rewards people who are willing to spend XP by making them lower than the rest of the party. Thus, they receive a bonus to the XP they earned for being at a different character level.

The easiest way to be able to ignore this problem and get what you want is just spend the $5, buy the Buy the Numbers pdf, alter it to your liking if you feel the need, and use it!

 

[kreynolds]

The XP costs on the chart are figured using 1/4th the required XP needed to obtain the next character level.

Any thoughts?

I allow this in my games. My cost is 1/5th the required XP needed to obtain the next level, and a maximum of two feats per level can be obtained in this manner.

I also allow the swapping out of class and prestige class abilities for feats, skills, ability scores, hit points, etc, but that's a very different topic.