Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 4736430" data-attributes="member: 22622">But who can deal with that many feats.  From a player and DM point of view, its overcumbersome.  Even the min/maxer would not have fun as there would be no challenge.  They'd be able to do .. everything or figure out how to get the prereqs to.  As one poster said, every d&d system from 2e to 3 to 4e and so one will suffer from supplement glut so long as a publically traded company needs to make money. There's no way around them.  As a DM you control what books are used and not used at your table.  Just because its there , doesn't mean it has to be used.  I"d agree with Monte's assement that event 20 to 24 feats is too much, thus the invention of double and uberfeats to "retire" feats into more powerful affairs.    REad experimental might 2 which is compatible with pathfinder.  Not only can you replace feats and still meat prereqs you can swap out feats at every level (within your domain) which gives access to lots o feats without going crazy (and yes 68 feats is crazy.. that's 2 supplements worth of feats).  Youre talking character sheets with a table of contents.    By todays standards, not by mine or your own.  Balance was not as important as the newness and creative actor, not saying there wasn't an attempt at balance, but the focus was on creating this new genre.  So , whereas everyone has an opinion, a 1e approach to game design does not work in this millinium.    AGain, u havn't read pathfinder (wierd to comment on it without reading it) so you only put in 1 skill point per level, giving u more.  Easily You would be able to max out the 15 top skills useful skills in the game (everyone would). YOu're talking on average 16 skill points a level per character.  But, as you kinda indicate, eventually these skills start trampling over one another.  That or they become so one dimensional (professionals, crafts) that they would rarely be used.  Add in the realness factor (how does an adventure get soo good so fast in so many things) and u realize even the current allotment of skills now may be too much. Again i like th pathfinder system.  1 rank per level in a skill.  YOur class skills get a +3 (My house rule has +5 at 10th level if you have 5 or more ranks). That works better, if you want professions, knowledge and craft skills, there should be a separate allotment of skill points for this, kin toother RPGs.  It makes no sense or a player to have more than 1 or 2 professions or crafts considering the realistic time it would take to even be an apprentice to someone.      Why not just start your game off at level 20?  Go epic all the way out.  It seems that this is what you're after.    This is the focus of your arguement, letting players be the most powerful they can given the system's amount of choices.  As is the charcters are complete and fleshed out.  If you're looking from a fantasy point of view, most fiction characters have 4 or 5 signature moves.  You're talking 68.    Depends on the definition of "good".  There are some players happy the game happens every week and they can play anything with theirriends.  There are some that demand a level of effort by the DM to make a balanced fun game for all.   I don't know a player who wants to deal with  30, 40, 50 feats.  I've never heard a player clamar for it.  Feats every level, maybe, but 3 or 4 a level, thats just silly.   The game you described seems impossible to play, but if it could it would more be an ubber superhero campaign. I havn't taken it to 20th level, but at 7th it works out great, with 2 fighters in the party who enjoy teh ability to retire a feat every now and then and swap out things they felt didn't work to begin with.  I"m sorry i still think this is an april fools joke (and since the gaming world seems devoid o them today (where is my little pony d20) what the heck. If it works or you more power to you, but his is the most ludicrous suggeston i've ever heard</blockquote>

Verification