Feats: Not enough or too many?

[Jedi_Solo]

There are too many needlessly duplicated feats (+2/+2, let the Soulknife make it work like X weapon).

There is always room for more feats though (new classes, new concepts, etc.)

And has been voiced above: character don't get enough feats to make use of them all.

 

[Wombat]

With all the official (and unofficial) Feats available, my players, when we were still playing D20, stuck primarily to the core Feats. Funny that way...

 

[Shade]

With all the official (and unofficial) Feats available, my players, when we were still playing D20, stuck primarily to the core Feats. Funny that way...

Not surprising, since until the release of PHB II, few of the new feats could compete with the core feats. Most of the non-core feats I've seen taken in the campaigns I'm in are to fill a niche or expand on a tree started with the core feats.

 

[Razz]

Excellent points!

I'd also add that we have too many feats that could essentially be one feat. For example, these aren't real feats but I've seen feats like this before:

Fire Focus
Your fire spells are harder to resist.
Benefit: Add +1 to the DC of spells you cast with the fire descriptor.

Next supplement releases...

Cold Focus
Your cold spells are harder to resist.
Benefit: Add +1 to the DC of spells you cast with the cold descriptor.

And so on, when they could have simply made this feat...

Energy Focus
Choose one energy type. Spells you cast with this energy type are harder to resist.
Benefit: Add +1 to the DC of spells you cast with the chosen energy descriptor.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you choose this feat, select a different energy type.

Exactly, I hate these type of feats! They should've pooled it as one. Especially those Soulknife feats in Complete Psionic where they all did the same exact thing, but were just different weapons. That could've been pooled into one, save space for other material.

 

[Nebulous]

I think that a lot of feats, both combat and magic, should be woven into everyday, normal "actions" you can take, rather than being singled out that you can only do it if you fill a slot with a feat.

Exactly, I hate these type of feats! They should've pooled it as one. Especially those Soulknife feats in Complete Psionic where they all did the same exact thing, but were just different weapons. That could've been pooled into one, save space for other material.

Arcana Evolved does this with the Eldritch Magic template. Or you can laden spells (cast two slots of the same level) to bump the DC.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Counting just WotC and Paizo, there are well over 2,500 unique published feats for various purposes. The count is over 3,000 if you count duplicate printings. My complaints about how they have been handled include the following.

1) Too many feats are listed as "General." A feat that increases spell DC, one that changes attacks of opportunity, and one that increases land movement are all considered the same type of feat.

2) It should be easier to tell which feats I'm not interested in right now. What I mean is that a LOT of feats require a specific race, class ability, campaign background or can only be taken at first level. That should be clearly visible and not buried in the prerequisites. The Warforged and Shifter feats in Eberron do a good job of this.

3) There are a handful of feats, like Saddleback, that appear in a whole bunch of different campaign settings with prerequisities that are setting-dependent. It would be nice to have more consistency in how this is expressed. Now, these could be listed as Regional, Ancestor, Racial, or General feats, depending on the predelictions of the author.

4) It would be nice to see some guidelines on what should be considered a potential fighter, monk, or wizard bonus feat, since the published materials are sometimes inconsistent on which are bonus feats and which are not. For example, any feat that affects attack rolls, combat damage, proficiency, armor class, initiative, or attacks of opportunity that does not involve abilities a human fighter would not have should be considered a fighter bonus feat, with the DM being the final judge.

5) There are some very deep feat trees for doing things like shield bashing. I would prefer more generic feats. A light shield is considered a light weapon in 3.5 if it is used to bash, so why do we need a whole host of separate feats to give it extra capabilities?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Not enough focused feats. The PH II started to focus feats (and also gave fighters about three abilities that are basically feats).

Feats need a stronger focus than just "fighter feats" or "magic feats", however.

 

[Nebulous]

5) There are some very deep feat trees for doing things like shield bashing. I would prefer more generic feats. A light shield is considered a light weapon in 3.5 if it is used to bash, so why do we need a whole host of separate feats to give it extra capabilities?

Agreed. And this line of thought can be applied to many feat chains. Why burn a feat to do something that is a logical extension of what you should be allowed to do naturally? Maybe you take a penalty for trying it, but it should be bundled somehow into Combat Actions.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Maybe.
If a Feats Compendium was printed I might say there are too many to choose from.
Right now since I am woefully behind in book buying I don't see a huge number of feats to choose from.
I also think there aren't too many because they are handed out so slowly. I really like Crothian's idea of feats every level. I would like to do that for a campaign before I can feel comfortable about saying there is / isn't too many feats.

 

[Shade]

1) Too many feats are listed as "General." A feat that increases spell DC, one that changes attacks of opportunity, and one that increases land movement are all considered the same type of feat.

Yes! Dragon has been taking a step in the right direction in Class Acts, with things like Ambush feats (feats that reduce your sneak attack damage for other benefits, similar to Hamstring and Arterial Strike from Complete Warrior). I'd like to see more of these specialized naming feats. Any feat that lets you give up a use of turn undead to power something is tagged as Divine. Thus, anything that let's you give up a use of bardic music, smite evil, or rage should be tagged as "Musical". "Smite", and "Fury", or somesuch.

I also like how the PHB II separated the metamagic feats from the general feats, rather than having them dispersed throughout like the orginal PHB. It makes it much easier to "shop" when creating a PC or NPC.