This is something which has been on my mind for a long, long time, and yet I never see addressed - so perhaps I'm the only person in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD to be concerned with this.
Nevertheless, I think the whole concept of Feats is due for a reappraisal. This is not a finished and perfected redesign, however, just some of the things which I think might improve the concept and hopefully the game.
Now, I'm not against Feats - I think they are a good way to differentiate between characters, especially those of a 'dry' class (e.g. fighter) which doesn't get many specified abilities during their career.
However, Feats are a jumble of very different things:
- some are basically a kind of skill, or at least abilities which have been taught to the character (weapon and armor proficiency, martial arts)
- some are combat maneuvers (cleave, whirlwind attack, all the martial arts feats for d20 modern etc.)
- some are talents, innate abilities which the character was born with or aqcuires because of a bloodline or heritage. These can range from having an aptitude for diplomacy to minor supernatural powers.
-some are perks, special options open to the character because of his/her social class, society, belief system etc. and thus generally give a materialistic benefit
Secondly, although Feats are intended to add to the character's options, in effect they often limit gameplay because of their binary nature. You either have a feat or not, which means you either can do something or not. In certain cases this makes a lot of sense, however many of the combat maneuver feats are 'run of the mill' actions which any combatant with martial training (at least) should be able to at least attempt, if not pull off.
Finally, too many feats are basically worthless once their 'improved' or 'greater' versions are chosen. (e.g. cleave-great cleave). So in effect the player 'loses' some feats over time though they do keep cluttering up stat blocks and character sheets because they have to be represented in order to make up the feat chain. As feat slots are so limited in number, and there are by now thousands of options open to players, this is regrettable. Iron Heroes has proposed a solution to this problem, as feats get expanded levels of mastery as the character progresses, but AFAIK you still have to expend a feat slot for every option. So your lower level masteries are once again often 'lost' as an improved version of the same ability comes along.
How to fix these problems? Here are some suggestions, but I freely admit that I haven't been able to consider all the balance ramifications (though game balance isn't one of my main concerns, I have to point out). And some of these options may also be wholly or partially mutually exclusive. I'm just proposing options.
1) Restrict feats to innate or circumstantial abilities (in Hero speak: talents and perks). Using this approach, a feat is something which you have been born with or which you have inherited, or achieved through your adventuring. The feat list becomes more manageable and the feats will in general be more flavorful.
The basic rule would be: anything you have to study for is not a feat.
2) Let feats scale with level without taking up an extra slot. Improved, Greater and Superior versions of a feat are automatically granted as the character level goes up. This leaves more room for different abilities and options, and fewer cookie cutter characters.
3) Make all 'maneuver feats' into combat maneuvers, which are basically open to everybody (though some of these obviously should have some prerequisites with regards to class or level). I mean, anyone with a shortbow should be able to attempt Shot on the Run... Mechanically, just follow the text of the feat to deal with modifiers to the combat roll.
Probably the best way to deal with this would be to group maneuvers in basic, advanced, master and grandmaster categories, and to let only the fighting classes (including monks with regards to martial arts and monk weapons - or else introduce one of the martial artist classes out there into the mix) have access to all of them (other classes would be limited to 1/2 (spellcasters) or 2/3 (rogues, clerics) progression). In this way the truly difficult or outlandish moves are still reserved for the high-level PCs and fighters still outshine everyone else on the battlefield. Yet every character can pull off a larger number of basic maneuvers.
Of course, the question is what to do about weapon and armour proficiencies. Do you turn them into a skill? Or is it viable to return to 1ed./2ed. proficiency slots (as the only benefit of these proficiencies is that your character is able to use weapons or armour without a negative modifier, it's not really making the rule system more complex)? I would prefer this final option, but I'm sure others will disagree vociferously.
I also have to admit to being a fan of maneuver-based combat systems, as these usually immediately conjure up a visual in the mind, and make it more spectacular/cinematic. On the other hand, having even more maneuvers at hand DOES increase complexity and might slow things down too much. In my defense, the current approach taken in Book of Nine Swords does start to move in the 'combat as maneuvers'-direction though the implementation is still different from the way I'd approach it. (Steven Palmer Peterson's Master of Arms supplement is more indicative of the way in which I'm thinking, though I'd turn all the feats in that book into maneuvers pure and simple)
Frankly, my main concern is to get rid of the 'I hit him with my sword'-approach to D&D/d20 combat. I find that if visual combat is made part of the basic ruleset, that's the way players will generally approach it.
So - comments, suggestions, corrections? Does this totally destroy the D&D/d20 balance? Is it a possible approach for a different d20/OGL declination? (I apologize if this is the wrong section of the forums to post this in...)
Nevertheless, I think the whole concept of Feats is due for a reappraisal. This is not a finished and perfected redesign, however, just some of the things which I think might improve the concept and hopefully the game.
Now, I'm not against Feats - I think they are a good way to differentiate between characters, especially those of a 'dry' class (e.g. fighter) which doesn't get many specified abilities during their career.
However, Feats are a jumble of very different things:
- some are basically a kind of skill, or at least abilities which have been taught to the character (weapon and armor proficiency, martial arts)
- some are combat maneuvers (cleave, whirlwind attack, all the martial arts feats for d20 modern etc.)
- some are talents, innate abilities which the character was born with or aqcuires because of a bloodline or heritage. These can range from having an aptitude for diplomacy to minor supernatural powers.
-some are perks, special options open to the character because of his/her social class, society, belief system etc. and thus generally give a materialistic benefit
Secondly, although Feats are intended to add to the character's options, in effect they often limit gameplay because of their binary nature. You either have a feat or not, which means you either can do something or not. In certain cases this makes a lot of sense, however many of the combat maneuver feats are 'run of the mill' actions which any combatant with martial training (at least) should be able to at least attempt, if not pull off.
Finally, too many feats are basically worthless once their 'improved' or 'greater' versions are chosen. (e.g. cleave-great cleave). So in effect the player 'loses' some feats over time though they do keep cluttering up stat blocks and character sheets because they have to be represented in order to make up the feat chain. As feat slots are so limited in number, and there are by now thousands of options open to players, this is regrettable. Iron Heroes has proposed a solution to this problem, as feats get expanded levels of mastery as the character progresses, but AFAIK you still have to expend a feat slot for every option. So your lower level masteries are once again often 'lost' as an improved version of the same ability comes along.
How to fix these problems? Here are some suggestions, but I freely admit that I haven't been able to consider all the balance ramifications (though game balance isn't one of my main concerns, I have to point out). And some of these options may also be wholly or partially mutually exclusive. I'm just proposing options.
1) Restrict feats to innate or circumstantial abilities (in Hero speak: talents and perks). Using this approach, a feat is something which you have been born with or which you have inherited, or achieved through your adventuring. The feat list becomes more manageable and the feats will in general be more flavorful.
The basic rule would be: anything you have to study for is not a feat.
2) Let feats scale with level without taking up an extra slot. Improved, Greater and Superior versions of a feat are automatically granted as the character level goes up. This leaves more room for different abilities and options, and fewer cookie cutter characters.
3) Make all 'maneuver feats' into combat maneuvers, which are basically open to everybody (though some of these obviously should have some prerequisites with regards to class or level). I mean, anyone with a shortbow should be able to attempt Shot on the Run... Mechanically, just follow the text of the feat to deal with modifiers to the combat roll.
Probably the best way to deal with this would be to group maneuvers in basic, advanced, master and grandmaster categories, and to let only the fighting classes (including monks with regards to martial arts and monk weapons - or else introduce one of the martial artist classes out there into the mix) have access to all of them (other classes would be limited to 1/2 (spellcasters) or 2/3 (rogues, clerics) progression). In this way the truly difficult or outlandish moves are still reserved for the high-level PCs and fighters still outshine everyone else on the battlefield. Yet every character can pull off a larger number of basic maneuvers.
Of course, the question is what to do about weapon and armour proficiencies. Do you turn them into a skill? Or is it viable to return to 1ed./2ed. proficiency slots (as the only benefit of these proficiencies is that your character is able to use weapons or armour without a negative modifier, it's not really making the rule system more complex)? I would prefer this final option, but I'm sure others will disagree vociferously.
I also have to admit to being a fan of maneuver-based combat systems, as these usually immediately conjure up a visual in the mind, and make it more spectacular/cinematic. On the other hand, having even more maneuvers at hand DOES increase complexity and might slow things down too much. In my defense, the current approach taken in Book of Nine Swords does start to move in the 'combat as maneuvers'-direction though the implementation is still different from the way I'd approach it. (Steven Palmer Peterson's Master of Arms supplement is more indicative of the way in which I'm thinking, though I'd turn all the feats in that book into maneuvers pure and simple)
Frankly, my main concern is to get rid of the 'I hit him with my sword'-approach to D&D/d20 combat. I find that if visual combat is made part of the basic ruleset, that's the way players will generally approach it.
So - comments, suggestions, corrections? Does this totally destroy the D&D/d20 balance? Is it a possible approach for a different d20/OGL declination? (I apologize if this is the wrong section of the forums to post this in...)
