Do you use Hero Points/Bennies/Re-Rolls?

[hong]

That's pretty warped logic, hong - do you really think that?

Since a feat doesn't require spotlight time, what is your point?

One of the design principles for feats is that choosing between them should be a tough decision.

Nonsense. The design principle for feats is that choosing between feats _given a particular concept_ should be a tough decision. If you're a fighter, you don't need Spell Focus, and if you're a wizard, you don't need Weapon Focus. In this particular case, it's a feat that's useful to all characters, regardless of concept, much like Great Fortitude and Iron Will.

If taking taking a particular feat is a no-brainer (as in this case), said feat probably needs to be toned down. The feat system becomes weakened by each feat of this type which you introduce into the game.

This might be relevant if I was thinking of introducing must-have feats on a wholesale basis in my game. In this particular case, it was simply a vehicle to introduce something that I thought a desirable feature, without making the game even more unlike vanilla D&D than it already was. Rest assured that should I need your advice on how to design my campaign, I'll be sure to email you.

 

[rounser]

Rest assured that should I need your advice on how to design my campaign, I'll be sure to email you.

When you post on a messageboard, you invite comment. Seeing as you're not in a mood to play fair (nor make sense, it seems), I retract my critique.

 

[hong]

When you post on a messageboard, you invite comment. Seeing as you're not in a mood to play fair (nor make sense, it seems), I retract my critique.

What part of

I was already making enough changes to the rules for my campaign, that I didn't want to introduce something completely new like hero points. Using the feat mechanic, and emulating the Luck domain ability, allowed me to sneak it in while still keeping it looking like same ol' D&D.

and

This might be relevant if I was thinking of introducing must-have feats on a wholesale basis in my game.

was unclear?

 

[rounser]

Okay...

I was already making enough changes to the rules for my campaign, that I didn't want to introduce something completely new like hero points. Using the feat mechanic, and emulating the Luck domain ability, allowed me to sneak it in while still keeping it looking like same ol' D&D.

I think we have a different idea of lesser evils, here. I'd rather go outside the feat system and maintain it's integrity than introduce something unbalanced into it for sake of using a default mechanic.

This might be relevant if I was thinking of introducing must-have feats on a wholesale basis in my game.

Even one must-have-feat in a game is enough to rock the boat a bit, as I understand it. Each PC becomes one feat slot more generic.

 

[hong]

Okay...

I think we have a different idea of lesser evils, here. I'd rather go outside the feat system and maintain it's integrity than introduce something unbalanced into it for sake of using a default mechanic.

Even one must-have-feat in a game is enough to rock the boat a bit, as I understand it. Each PC becomes one feat slot more generic.

As a sampler of the changes for my Britannia 3E game:
- no clerics, druids, paladins, wizards or monks
- tweaked OA shamans ("druids") and samurai ("knights") as replacements
- druids, rangers, bards and sorcerers use OA spell lists
- no alignment restrictions on barbarians
- several class tweaks, including an alt.ranger (of course)
- no 9th level spells
- material components modified to match Ultima spell components
- several game-breaking spells tweaked or nerfed
- no splatbook feats generally available, except from OA
- conversely, several homebrew feats available
- limited selection of splatbook prestige classes
- "virtue" system emulating Ultima virtues

I figured I was already rocking the boat enough.

 

[rounser]

Heh. Fair enough.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

Sounds like a good idea, but I think a Cleric with the Luck domain would be getting shafted in a game with Hero Points.