Can Feat "slots" be held over?

[Zipher]

Hmm..

Thanks for the replies, doh.. so I can't hold feats...

Maybe you guys can help me out? I want to make a Rogue1/PsionX (but taking the rogue level first, with the rest going into Psion)

So.. what should I do with the first feat? (I ask because I cannot get any psi or metapsi feats as I am only a rogue at this point)

(I was thinking Wild Talent (for the 2 pp), but that seems like a waste as at higher levels, 2pp is not worth much... though it would make for an interesting character background)

Thanks!

-Zipher

 

[Saracor]

I allow it. Think it's rather stupid not to. Lets characters take more of the feats they want to rather than having to take one now and waiting a long time to get the feat they want since it has a level requirement that is after their feat level and several levels before another feat (things like Improved Familiar and such).

Make the game much more player friendly and less arbitrary.

 

[Li Shenron]

Can I choose not to use a feat slot when it becomes avalible? instead, can I "hold on to it" until the next time I level?

Here's what I think.

A PC is a person who keeps learning stuff throughout her life. When she "gains a feat" by "levelling up", she is not suddenly enlightened into the knowledge of brewing potions or fighting with a new weapon, just like she doesn't suddenly learn new spells or gain improved abilities; levelling up is an abstraction done to make game bookkeping easier, but obviously your PC has actually learned or trained for the improvement during the previous months or years, and finally getting the stuff is the result.

Feats in particular are usually gained every 3 levels. This means that basically you have been learning the feat during your previous 3 levels. So for example if you got Scribe Scroll at level 3 and Brew Potions at level 6, you could imagine that your character has actually spent levels 3, 4 and 5 learning how to brew potions. That obviously is only a mental image, because perhaps she has been studying it for the last 20 year instead

That said, I don't think it's a real problem to allow someone to delay a feat. If a player asks the DM that it's either (1) because she currently has no idea about which feat to take or (2) because she is making a trick to avoid some rule limitation.

In case (1) it should be the DM's responsibility to help the player. If it would interrupt the session, it's definitely better not to force the player choose the first feat on her mind! I'd just make a deal with her and help her choose the feat at the end of the session, or before next evening. It's kind of obvious that NOT taking the feat (or any other ability) at the first opportunity is a loss for the player, not an advantage.

However, there are very few circumstances when it's actually an advantage. Sometimes you cannot get a specific feat because you don't meet the prerequisites yet, such as Weapon Finesse at level 1 if you are a Rogue. In this case it would help to delay the feat until level 2, because if you take a different feat, the next time you can get WF is level 3. So some players ask for feat delay just because of this.
A strict DM would probably forbid this, and the authors definitely support this view, as they voluntarily designed feats requisite to make them unavailable to certain classes before a certain level.
But you know what? I wouldn't even mind to allow such a thing I don't think that voluntarily delaying NOW the acquisition of a feature, to gain it LATER a little earlier than expected makes any problem to the game. Actually it's quite a fair trade-off. There could be specific cases to forbid, however.

 

[Quasqueton]

I've been allowing the "banking" of feats. Can't decide, or can't make the prerequisite for a feat you want? Fine. Take it the next time you level up.

I wanted to build a monk/psychic warrior, starting as a 1st-level monk. The DM let me bank my 1st-level feat till 2nd level so I could take Inertial Armor with my psychic warrior level. I appreciated it.

A Player was playing a rogue weilding 2 short swords, but through first and second level his attack bonus sucked badly (-1/-1, or +1/+1 when flanking) because he couldn't get Weapon Finesse till 3rd level. The difference in our party's combat ability jumped dramatically at 3rd level when the rogue could finally hit opponents (+3/+3, or +5/+5 when flanking).

I've played characters and seen characters that wouldn't come to mechanical effectiveness until level X because he/she had to get some feat. I didn't like that idea.

Its the same with starting at 1st level with a multiclass concept (rogue/sorcerer, cleric/wizard, etc.). That's why I also start the PCs in my game at 2nd level---they can come into the game with their mechancs matching their concept.

Plus, it makes doing quick PC audits easier when I don't have to consider what order they may have taken their feats.

Quasqueton

 

[The Grackle]

For instance, a fighter that is permitted to bank feats can qualify for Whirlwind Attack at 4th level. A fighter otherwise can't take Whirlwind Attack until 6th level. (This occurs because both Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack require a BAB of +4. The fighter has a BAB of +4 at 4th level, but, RAW, only has one feat to spend.) Obviously, Whirlwind Attack is substantially more powerful at 4th level than at 6th.

One could argue that playing w/one less feat through second and third level provides a balance to getting Whirlwind Attack early.

I wouldn't argue that, but someone could.




edit: Oh, wait. I see Li already has.

 

[Treebore]

I allow banking simply because feats are learned. Learning doesn't "have" to take place at a specific time unless you require them to go someplace to specifically learn the feat. Plus I want my players to be playing characters that are the characters they want. Not something they are forced to play because of arbitrary rules. It all seems to balance out in the end, so I don't sweat it.

I see the reasoning for the rules, but I don't agree with it simply because this game is about having fun and banking feats isn't going to ruin that fun, but it will help it.