Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 2780731" data-attributes="member: 2020">I would like to make a hypothesis on D&D 3.5.  Call it a guess.  Once I've made it, could the experienced players here tell me what they think?  If you are one of the people who designed 3rd Edition, could you tell me if I guessed right?  My guess is about a specific prohibition set forth by WOTC.  Now, I have only read a tiny fraction of what WOTC has published.  I haven't even peaked into most of their books.  I haven't read the 3.5 Dragon and Dungeon and Polyhedron Magazines published by WOTC and the other publishing companies.  I haven't read the products created by the Designers of 3rd Edition who no longer are at WOTC, but who have created their own products for D&D 3.5, such as the popular Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook.  I haven't read but a bare fraction of the d20 products, whether created by the Designers of 3rd Edition or not created by them.  But I am willing to bet they all have one thing in common, and it is the prohibition I am going to discuss.  There are 1,500 feats published by WOTC.  There are thousands more published by others.  There are at least hundreds of skills.  Maybe thousands.    There are at least hundreds of prestige classes.  There are thousands of spells.  And there are rules that allow you to min/max skills until you have massive bonuses with them.  There are rules that allow you to take multiple prestige classes, to multi-class yourself wild (with the obvious drawback of split experience.)  There are rules that allow you to throw multiple spells at once.  Heck, there isn't practically anything you can't do in 3rd Edition.  But ...  There are no rules that allow you to bulk up on large numbers of extra feats.  And there never will be.  -  I just read chapter one of the 3.5 DMG.  And in that chapter, they discussed concepts I've read about previously for decades.  But in the 3.5 DMG, they were very eloquent about the points they wished to make, and among these points is the necessity of balance.  They weren't talking about some mystical balance in the stars.  They weren't talking about the balance between good and evil.  They weren't talking about anything complicated or difficult at all.  Their definition of balance is a single sentence:  ALL THE PLAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE FUN.  That's a balance I can believe in.  That's a balance I appreciate.  That's a balance I want in my games.  Yet, we know the characters are not balanced.  Tordek cannot cast spells.  Mialee cannot proficiently wield an axe.  Jozan cannot sneak attack.  Lidda cannot turn undead.  This inbalance is something we all know well.  And we know it's a Balance of Imbalances, where the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all.  That's right:  the characters must depend on each other, because no one character can do it all.  A balance of imbalances.     And thus, you might say, everyone has a chance at an equal share of the action, and thus an equal share of the fun.  But ...  In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!  In 1st edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained by requiring that each character take one class and one class only, or multiclass with restrictions that made it not worth the candle (that is, you had to be non-human, and take severe level limit penalties:  ORIGINALLY an elf could rise to be a mere 5th level fighter (or if very exceptional, up to 7th level), or a 9th level mage (if very exceptional, up to 11th level), and could not be a druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, monk, or bard at all.  And NO exceptions.)  In 2nd edition, the balance of imbalance was maintained in a similar fashion, except level limits were raised and more multiclass options allowed (this pleased a lot of players, but it did not necessarily improve the balance of imbalances, as some players will point out.)  So whither 3rd Edition?  In 3rd Edition, any race can be any class can be any multiclass can be any prestige class can do whatever they please!!!  So where is the balance of imbalance?  What forces the characters to rely on each other?  What allows each character a fair share of the action, and thus the player has a fair share of the fun?  Feats.  Feats are the classes of 3rd edition.  The classes of 3rd edition are the honorary titles.  The feats are the real classes.  The fighter takes feats.  Feats define what he can do.  Feats define the kind of fighter he is.  The wizard takes feats.  Feats define what she can do.  Feats define the kind of wizard she is.  (Her ability to cast spells is a kind of feat.  What particular spells she selects for the day, could be described as daily feats for the wizard that incur additional restrictions such as memorization and sleep.)  All the other classes have special abilities that are, IMO, variants of feats.  Some directly relate to feats (such as a ranger's ability to take certain feats without qualifying for them first.)  Others are not described as feats, but they might as well be feats.  Feats are it.  Feats are where it's at.  And you only get 1 starting Feat (and one more if you're human) plus one at 3rd level, one at 6th level, one at 9th level, and so on.  If you're a fighter, fighter feats.  If you're a wizard, metamagic feats.  And that's it.  No more.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  Not even the powerful gestalt rules variant allows you a single extra feat.  No 9th level spell or less in the game allows permanent extra feats ... and no 9th level spell or less in the game ever will.  Because feats are what creates the balance of imbalance in 3rd Edition.  Feats, and the inability to take more than a few feats, are what allow each character his chance at action, and the player's fair chance at fun.    If a rule came into being that allowed a character a large number of extra feats, that character would become the I Can Do Everything Character.  No need for anyone else, no interdependence between characters, and thus no chance for each character to shine in turn ... and no fun for the other players.  Thus, my question in my previous post cannot be answered, and will never be answered, for the answer is No, There is No Way to Augment the Number of Feats in Any Significant Way.  Even the epic rules do not violate the prohibition.  Yes, epic spells can allow a character to permanently gain new feats, and thus gain a large number of permanent, additional feats.  But these are normal feats gained, not epic feats.  Even as normal spells will not grant normal feats, epic spells will not grant epic feats.  In an epic campaign, normal feats are not meaningful like they were when the campaign was at low level, assuming they are meaningful at all.  Epic feats are what is meaningful, and these cannot be gained by the characters through any known means, be they epic spells or anything else.  Even artifacts are of no avail, for they are standard magical items in an epic campaign and do not have rules-altering power that is meaningful in an epic campaign (those few artifacts that are exceptions, which are so powerful that they can alter the rules in spirit, are invariably fatal or permanently debilitating to characters who dare to wield them.)    Thus there is nothing, period, within any of the rules, that allows for large numbers of extra feats.  You may be able to select from hundreds of prestige classes, from thousands of feats, min/max with hundreds of skills, and learn hundreds of spells ...  But you will never be granted a large number of excess feats by anything other than a DM who wishes this fundamental concept of 3rd edition to be changed.  Probably, such a change will occur only if you are playing one on one, because then your character (who can now Do It All) cannot hog the game.  There are no other players to hog the game from.  Perhaps the DM allows a few (but not a large number of) extra feats, to each and every character, for the purpose of compressing the level structure of the game.  That is, he wishes to make a 10th level character into a 5th level character, and a 20th level character into a 10th level character.  Thus he can keep the playing level low in certain ways, while allowing higher powered characters.  Whether this variant has ever been tried by anyone, I don't know.  Whether it has worked, I don't know either.  Or the DM can decide to allow large numbers of feats to all the players, in any order and in any way that pleases them.  Certainly, this could make the players happy in the short term.  But this is courting unmitigated disaster in the mid and long term, if my guess is correct.  Feats are the core of the game.  Change the feat rules, and you change everything.  All this is a guess on my part.  Just a guess.  I'm a Newbie, and do not know how the game works.  I've said this repeatedly, and say it again:  I don't know what I'm talking about.  It's not beneath my dignity to say that:  it pays to be humble.   If any of you (and nearly all of you are more experienced with 3rd Edition than me, right now) wish to chime in on this, I would take delight in your comments.  If I am lucky enough that one of the 3rd Edition Game Designers reads this post, I would be grateful if they would comment on my guess.  Yours Sincerely  Edena_of_Neith  -  (chuckles)    (And that means that No, the Fighter Does Not Get The 14 Down and Dirty Feats at 1st level, or 5th level, or 10th level, but at 14th or 15th level, as the rules - and the prohibition against accelerated feat acquisition - require.)</blockquote>

Verification