Feats every level question

[Crothian]

Call me old-fashioned, but a feat/level system seems like a lot of work. In the first place, not all feats provide static bonuses so many feats would be easy to forget. In the second place, monsters with 20 or so HD would get 13 extra feats, more than twice what they already have! Besides the fact that the DM has to update every single monster in existence,

It is actually not a lot of work and I don't have to update every monster, just the ones that the PCs encounter. I find it easy to remeber what feats the creatures have and to use them. But even if I wanted to go with just static feats there are plenty of them out there.

the DM also has to remember to use those feats in combat and use them properly. Additionally, the DM doesn't have time to think through his monsters as well as the PCs do for their characters (the PCs face any given monster once while the PCs themselves are around forever) meaning a feat/level rule inherently favors the PCs.

In practice it doesn't though. All one needs to be is familiar with the game they are DMing to be able to pick good and useful feats for the monsters. I rarely take anything outside the PHB.

 

[Tsillanabor]

Feats like Improved Natural Armor make monster updating easy.

 

[Voadam]

High HD monsters

Not every monster feat needs to be optimized for the combat with the PCs.

Standard orcs have alertness as their one feat after all.

Skill focus, endurance, run, track, and the one from the psionic section of the SRD that provides five extra skill points can all be applied reasonably to NPCs and have no combat impact.

So adding skill focus to three of a lion's skills is an easy change.

 

[freebfrost]

I also have trouble to see how fighters would still be good with so many base feats.

Statistics alone will not provide you with the complete picture. When I instituted a feat/level rule in my last campaign, I had the exact same discussion with players - down to the level of the exact percentage change for using feats every other level, every level, etc. And now that the campaign is a year along, not one of the them has anything but praise for the system.

Why?

Feat chains. Take your stereotypical archer fighter build - that's an effective long-range fighter, but they aren't quite so good in melee because they've focused solely on archery.

But now you have more feats for the fighter - they can be a tank AND an archer, or an even more supremely skilled archer, or whatever. And since general "fighting" feats make up a lot of the feat trees, this allows fighters to more fully explore their choices.

Even with a feat/level, you simply aren't going to get many wizards taking power attack/cleave/great cleave - they'll end up taking more useful feats that are usually overlooked in terms of maximizing a character's capabilities in the party. While sometimes you'll get a roleplayer who decides their 6th level druid needs to take skill focus, most druids are taking natural spell.

As far as making it harder for the DM to run - no one says you have to fill out every encounter to the nth degree. If it's a main character, then sure, fill out every feat logically - otherwise, throw in a feat on the fly for a monster - say skill focus (climb) for a bear or lion. And ignore the rest - assume they took a "bad" feat. Someone has to take bad feats sometimes right?

 

[Nellisir]

I give out a feat every level EXCEPT when characters get an ability boost (4th, 10th, and 16th in my game). I don't have a problem adding feats to monsters (Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack, Weapon Focus, etc). And the fighters just get better. If anything, it's made characters stick closer to the "core" concept of their character. If they need more hit points, they take Toughness (houseruled) instead of a level of fighter.

 

[Psion]

Call me old-fashioned, but a feat/level system seems like a lot of work. In the first place, not all feats provide static bonuses so many feats would be easy to forget.

What those of us are finding that wish to accelerate the rate of feat acquisition is that players find that there are more feats out there appropriate to their character than there are feat slots. When you on on the player side of the screen, and only getting one feat per level, it's not that hard to keep a bead on what you are doing.

In the second place, monsters with 20 or so HD would get 13 extra feats, more than twice what they already have! Besides the fact that the DM has to update every single monster in existence, the DM also has to remember to use those feats in combat and use them properly.

That's only if you use the Crothian method.

I don't.

I only give heroic and elite characters additional feats. For other creatures, I factor in additional character "oomph" in ELs.

I imagine that Crothian, or anyone else who prefers to apply the extra feats across the board, either doesn't find it a burden or relishes the idea of throwing in a few surprsies in every creature.

How many of these feat/level campaigns are high level?

Part of the reason I am playing with this variant is I like very competant characters, but not necessarily extremely powerful characters. So I am more content to slow down the advancement rate but use additional feats to keep the toys players have to play with at a high level.

(That said, I don't do feat/level. I only do feat/level that you don't get a stat bonus, so all PCs have a choice at every level.)

 

[Psion]

I would think in general that most feats are combat oriented, so more feats would improve fighter type classes.

That's something I fear as well.

I'm hoping requiring some additional feats be taken from a "flavor" list helps mitigate this. (An idea cribbed from Andy Collins' web page.)

Casters imo don't need feats to do most of the things they do.

I disagree with that. Right now, a feat seems dear for what a metamagic feat gives you. Having more will make them seem more appealing and add to the variety in the game.

 

[genshou]

Statistics alone will not provide you with the complete picture. When I instituted a feat/level rule in my last campaign, I had the exact same discussion with players - down to the level of the exact percentage change for using feats every other level, every level, etc. And now that the campaign is a year along, not one of the them has anything but praise for the system.

Why?

Feat chains. Take your stereotypical archer fighter build - that's an effective long-range fighter, but they aren't quite so good in melee because they've focused solely on archery.

But now you have more feats for the fighter - they can be a tank AND an archer, or an even more supremely skilled archer, or whatever. And since general "fighting" feats make up a lot of the feat trees, this allows fighters to more fully explore their choices.

Even with a feat/level, you simply aren't going to get many wizards taking power attack/cleave/great cleave - they'll end up taking more useful feats that are usually overlooked in terms of maximizing a character's capabilities in the party. While sometimes you'll get a roleplayer who decides their 6th level druid needs to take skill focus, most druids are taking natural spell.

As far as making it harder for the DM to run - no one says you have to fill out every encounter to the nth degree. If it's a main character, then sure, fill out every feat logically - otherwise, throw in a feat on the fly for a monster - say skill focus (climb) for a bear or lion. And ignore the rest - assume they took a "bad" feat. Someone has to take bad feats sometimes right?

QFT. Regarding the part about Fighter builds...

For one thing, the Fighter will get to the top of a feat chain quicker than any other character much of the time. If both a Fighter and a Barbarian are building a feat chain with a Base Attack prerequisite, they will both finish at the same time, but the Fighter is also at the end of another feat chain or two by then. If you look at percentages it doesn't seem as amazing, but play a Fighter alongside a Barbarian or Ranger with a feat each level and you'll see every feat ahead of the others is still a major advantage, especially with the neat Fighter-only feats 3.5 graced us with.