Faster feats - keeping them from getting out of hand

[aok]

I permit a trade in of

half of the character's base skill points at each level for an additional feat. (Certain feats I exclude - like the one that gives you 5 skill points, and only permit them at the normal 3 levels.) The trade in I think is balanced in terms of different classes - it costs a fighter 1 pt, and a rogue 4 for instance. For overall game balance I'm careful about prerequisites - esp those for Prestige Classes. I often add skill prerequisites for them and I utilize skills in game a lot. Ultimately the character has to consider their choices carefully.

 

[Saerynishar]

I allow players to buy feats with XP. Normal feats cost 500 XP + 500 XP per prerequisite, and require 1 day + 1 day per prerequisite dedicated training time. Buying a second feat before levelling up costs double, a third costs triple, etc. Epic feats require the same amount of training time, but cost 10x the experience.

I've found it to be fairly balanced. It's the only form of training time I use, it makes sense to me within the context of the game, and players generally get a new feat every other level or so. The only problem it creates is party level incongruities, but as buying feats makes the character more powerful, I generally treat them as a bit higher in terms of the experience they recieve.

I've also got fighters receiving a bonus +1 to an ability score at 5th level, and every 5 levels thereafter, to balance out the fact that their class feature can now be bought with XP.

 

[Masquerade]

I enjoy low-level games the most, so when I DM, I usually give out a feat at every level. As I design the game to end around the time the group achieves mid-levels, there is never an opportunity for abuse.

 

[Space Coyote]

Here is something that I mentioned on this board before, but havent actually implemented in my own game yet.

I have found that there are a LOT of feats in both core books and extra books that my players and I never use simply because they are not worth spending a feat on. For example, if you can choose betwen a feat that give you a small bonus (+1) on something you use often, then this is a LOT better than a feat that gives you even a big bonus (+6) on something that you rarely, if ever use. Therefore my players and I find that there are lot of feats that we dont ever use simply because A) the bonus is too small and/or B) the situation that calls for the feat would is so rare there is no point in taking it.

But to simply give the players MORE feats would just mean they would take more of the "good" ones. So, I what I came up with is minor, moderate and major feats. I would determine which feats are rarely or never used and list those as "minor". Feats which are sometimes selected would be "moderate" and feats which are really useful or used all the time would be "major".

Whenever a player could choose a new feat (every 3 levels), they got 3 "points" to spend on feats, with minor, moderate and major feats costing 1, 2 and 3 respectively. This only applied to feats gained for character levels. Feats gained through classes (eg Fighter or Wizard bonus feats) or any other source would not use this rule.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Here is something that I mentioned on this board before, but havent actually implemented in my own game yet.

I have found that there are a LOT of feats in both core books and extra books that my players and I never use simply because they are not worth spending a feat on. For example, if you can choose betwen a feat that give you a small bonus (+1) on something you use often, then this is a LOT better than a feat that gives you even a big bonus (+6) on something that you rarely, if ever use. Therefore my players and I find that there are lot of feats that we dont ever use simply because A) the bonus is too small and/or B) the situation that calls for the feat would is so rare there is no point in taking it.

But to simply give the players MORE feats would just mean they would take more of the "good" ones. So, I what I came up with is minor, moderate and major feats. I would determine which feats are rarely or never used and list those as "minor". Feats which are sometimes selected would be "moderate" and feats which are really useful or used all the time would be "major".

Whenever a player could choose a new feat (every 3 levels), they got 3 "points" to spend on feats, with minor, moderate and major feats costing 1, 2 and 3 respectively. This only applied to feats gained for character levels. Feats gained through classes (eg Fighter or Wizard bonus feats) or any other source would not use this rule.

I like this idea, but it would require us to go through and gauge how good all the feats are and a feats value can be pretty relative.

 

[jedavis]

Yes, I concur that Space Coyote's idea is quite good, but also agree with Aust that it would be rather hard to go through and gauge every feat...

Further, there is the fact that how often a feat is used depends on the character and player. For example, a warmage is going to get a lot more mileage out of spell focus (evocation) than a wizard, since it affects most of his spells (and he gets more/day (I think... The specifics weren't the point)). Some (like deflect arrows) can probably be reasonably estimated, since the character can only activate them when someone else makes a certain choice (to shoot at him, in this case). However, for most feats, mileage will vary significantly, simply depending on player choice (that all-important but totally pain in the butt aspect of the game....).

For gaining feats more often, a variant on Space Coyote's system could be implemented, where the character gains one (or two, or however many) feat point (s) per level, and may save them up to gain feats costing more than the allotment per level.

On Power Attack: It never gets used (in my group, anyways), but is always taken as a gateway feat. Does that qualify as minor, moderate, or major?

 

[Psion]

Yes, I concur that Space Coyote's idea is quite good, but also agree with Aust that it would be rather hard to go through and gauge every feat...

Honestly, I like Andy Collins' solution better. (In the link Starman posted.)

I think one of the more tedious aspects of 3e is skill purchasing, and that sounds like it is going down the same alley. I am not up for that sort of tracking. I like the idea better of focussing the players on more thematically appropriate feats.

 

[Starman]

Honestly, I like Andy Collins' solution better. (In the link Starman posted.)

I think one of the more tedious aspects of 3e is skill purchasing, and that sounds like it is going down the same alley. I am not up for that sort of tracking. I like the idea better of focussing the players on more thematically appropriate feats.

The great thing about it is that you can break it down by race or region or organization or whatever and get a nice theme going.

 

[jedavis]

I find that Collins' system different and interesting, but he also notes that it is designed for a low-magic world where there is little treasure and the PCs need to be much better sans items than normal ones to survive.

The racial feat list is definitely interesting, though... I'd implement it in some form if I wasn't playing with a bunch of noobs who have enough trouble as it is. Actually, I could maybe see giving feats out every two levels, and every fifth level getting a racial feat. That might be approximately balanced. Then again, the point of this thread wasn't to achieve balance so much as to modify an existing structure in a way which gives more power, so I have no real reason to gripe (If I did, I wouldn't have read/posted).

 

[Starman]

I find that Collins' system different and interesting, but he also notes that it is designed for a low-magic world where there is little treasure and the PCs need to be much better sans items than normal ones to survive.

Yeah, but if you up the feats for the NPCs, too, then everything stays "balanced."