Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 2782627" data-attributes="member: 2020">Monboesen, the game you were in (which I assume was a successful, fun game) contradicts my guesswork concerning feats.&nbsp; Which means, I could have it all wrong.&nbsp; (I probably do, but this would confirm it.)&nbsp; You are saying that, in this campaign, the characters gained a feat every level, and this was in addition to the usual feats allowed at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc. and the fighter feats granted fighters and metamagic feats granted mages, and otherwise?&nbsp; So, in that campaign, a wizard got:&nbsp; 1st level:&nbsp; One feat, plus one feat for being a human.&nbsp; 2nd level:&nbsp; One feat.&nbsp; 3rd level:&nbsp; Two feats.&nbsp; 4th level:&nbsp; One feat.&nbsp; 5th level:&nbsp; One feat plus one metamagic feat.&nbsp; 6th level:&nbsp; Two feats.&nbsp; 7th level:&nbsp; One feat.&nbsp; And this worked?&nbsp; I would have thought that this would have caused the characters to be much stronger, relative to the DC encounters they had to face.&nbsp; That is, a 7th level character would be stronger relative to a DC 7 opponent, than a 7th level character under the normal feat rules.&nbsp; Wouldn't that reduce the interdependence, the necessity of reliance on the other characters?&nbsp; And wouldn't that, in turn, lessen the compulsion to cooperate?&nbsp; Ok, you say that this did not happen in that game.&nbsp; How did the DM compensate for the higher power level?&nbsp; How did you handle the Feats?&nbsp; Can you elaborate further?&nbsp; It sorta sounds like you took a kind of Gestalt approach to feats, as it were ... you allowed more, but required generalization and forbid specialization.&nbsp; Can you elaborate further?&nbsp; Has anyone else played in a feat rich game like this?&nbsp; If so, did it work?&nbsp; If so, how did your DM compensate for the higher power level?&nbsp; Or was there a higher power level?&nbsp; I *considered* the idea of a House Rule that would allow 1 feat per level, but abandoned the idea when I guessed that the severe limits on feats were put there to force interdependency among the characters.&nbsp; But if I was wrong, if my guess was wrong, please show me.&nbsp; Because obviously I would love a game where everyone got a feat at every level, plus their normal allowed feats!&nbsp; Who wouldn't, as long as it didn't wreck the game and ruin the fun?&nbsp; I mean, they published 1,500 feats.&nbsp; That's a lot of feats!!!&nbsp; But they haven't published one single rule for greatly expanding the number of feats you can take (much less, expanding it to one feat per level.)&nbsp; I think they are adamant about the feat attainment restrictions, and surely there must be a good reason for that?&nbsp; No?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Edena_of_Neith, post: 2782627, member: 2020"] Monboesen, the game you were in (which I assume was a successful, fun game) contradicts my guesswork concerning feats. Which means, I could have it all wrong. (I probably do, but this would confirm it.) You are saying that, in this campaign, the characters gained a feat every level, and this was in addition to the usual feats allowed at 3rd, 6th, 9th, etc. and the fighter feats granted fighters and metamagic feats granted mages, and otherwise? So, in that campaign, a wizard got: 1st level: One feat, plus one feat for being a human. 2nd level: One feat. 3rd level: Two feats. 4th level: One feat. 5th level: One feat plus one metamagic feat. 6th level: Two feats. 7th level: One feat. And this worked? I would have thought that this would have caused the characters to be much stronger, relative to the DC encounters they had to face. That is, a 7th level character would be stronger relative to a DC 7 opponent, than a 7th level character under the normal feat rules. Wouldn't that reduce the interdependence, the necessity of reliance on the other characters? And wouldn't that, in turn, lessen the compulsion to cooperate? Ok, you say that this did not happen in that game. How did the DM compensate for the higher power level? How did you handle the Feats? Can you elaborate further? It sorta sounds like you took a kind of Gestalt approach to feats, as it were ... you allowed more, but required generalization and forbid specialization. Can you elaborate further? Has anyone else played in a feat rich game like this? If so, did it work? If so, how did your DM compensate for the higher power level? Or was there a higher power level? I *considered* the idea of a House Rule that would allow 1 feat per level, but abandoned the idea when I guessed that the severe limits on feats were put there to force interdependency among the characters. But if I was wrong, if my guess was wrong, please show me. Because obviously I would love a game where everyone got a feat at every level, plus their normal allowed feats! Who wouldn't, as long as it didn't wreck the game and ruin the fun? I mean, they published 1,500 feats. That's a lot of feats!!! But they haven't published one single rule for greatly expanding the number of feats you can take (much less, expanding it to one feat per level.) I think they are adamant about the feat attainment restrictions, and surely there must be a good reason for that? No? [/QUOTE]

Verification