UltimaGabe
First Post
Hey, everyone. I'm posting this topic to ask a question: Do the Great Charisma, Great Strength, Great Dexterity, and all those other Epic feats that simply improve an ability score by 1, really need to be Epic feats? Now, before you jump down my throat with cries of "UNBALANCED!!!" or "POWERGAMER!!!" or "MUNCHKIN!!!", listen to my reasoning.
First, in a core D&D campaign, assuming he lives for at least 18 levels, a character can get 7 feats- 8, if he's a human. That means that aside from classes that grant bonus feats (which are generally limited to a certain list), you have 7 (8) Feats that you could use for whatever the heck you want. Only 8, at max, and that's assuming you don't have a Level Adjusted Race, and you're in the campaign until almost Epic Level.
Second, I really don't think that the Great Strength and such feats are balanced as Epic Feats at all. For a character who already has millions of GP's worth of magic items, I don't see any reason to choose a +1 to an ability score over something like Planar Turning, Intensify Spell, or Terrifying Rage. So, as it is, I don't think they're worth being Epic Feats to begin with.
Third, are they really that much more powerful than something like Mobility, Quicken Spell, or Whirlwind Attack? After all, considering an 18th-level character will get a maximum of 8 feats over the course of his career, that means that if he was extremely specialized- meaning, he didn't take a single feat aside from increasing his stats- he could, over 18 levels, gain a +8 to one ability score. It looks powerful at first glance, but considering this character isn't going to have any metamagic feats, or any tactical feats, or anything other than one high ability score, it's not as powerful as it looks.
Fourth, I think that this would be a lot more realistic and reasonable than not. As we all know, if a person spends years lifting weights, or spends years reading and learning, or spends a year exercising, he's going to end up stronger, smarter, or hardier than when he started- and yet, by the rules of the game, there is no way to adjuducate this without involving magic. True, there are always inherent bonuses, but not every commoner has access to the hundreds of thousands of GP needed for a Tome of Understanding +5 or Wish spells- and even if a DM feels like giving out inherent bonuses in exchange for a character's training, that's only limiting what he's going to be able to do once he DOES have money- as in that case, even Wishes won't have as much of an effect on a character who's spent years training in the mountains.
Fifth, that also takes much less emphasis on magical items. If the only possible way a character can increase his ability scores is by magic, then of course that's the way charactrers are going to want to go. Many DMs complain about PCs cheesing out their characters by buying all sorts of magic items to weasel their way into higher ability scores- this way, you're giving it to them in place of a feat. Chances are, feats are going to be much less plentiful than money. Also, in low-magic or low-point buy campaigns, it still gives PCs the chance to shine, if they're willing to expend some resources for it- because face it: a PC with all low ability scores is no fun to play, and certain heroic deeds simply aren't possible with your highest stat at a 15 for the entire campaign.
Sixth, I think that this would make Fighters more appealing. Most people complain that the Fighter is the weakest class in 3.5- because all they get is feats. With this system, however, ability score increases can only be bought with non-class feats, and in that case, a person with many ability score increases isn't going to have many feats for anything else- Fighters, however, have many more class feats, and would therefore be able to increase their ability scores, and still get many feats usable in battle like Power Attack, Spring Attack, or Iron Will.
And seventh, I just think that too many DMs are obsessed with keeping their PCs powerless. Any attempt at trying to make their character more powerful is met with XP penalties and criticism. Whatever happened to when D&D was supposed to be about having fun? And if a character would rather have a higher Strength score than taking another feat, and the rules simply won't let him, where's the fun being had?
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to criticize, just please be rational.
First, in a core D&D campaign, assuming he lives for at least 18 levels, a character can get 7 feats- 8, if he's a human. That means that aside from classes that grant bonus feats (which are generally limited to a certain list), you have 7 (8) Feats that you could use for whatever the heck you want. Only 8, at max, and that's assuming you don't have a Level Adjusted Race, and you're in the campaign until almost Epic Level.
Second, I really don't think that the Great Strength and such feats are balanced as Epic Feats at all. For a character who already has millions of GP's worth of magic items, I don't see any reason to choose a +1 to an ability score over something like Planar Turning, Intensify Spell, or Terrifying Rage. So, as it is, I don't think they're worth being Epic Feats to begin with.
Third, are they really that much more powerful than something like Mobility, Quicken Spell, or Whirlwind Attack? After all, considering an 18th-level character will get a maximum of 8 feats over the course of his career, that means that if he was extremely specialized- meaning, he didn't take a single feat aside from increasing his stats- he could, over 18 levels, gain a +8 to one ability score. It looks powerful at first glance, but considering this character isn't going to have any metamagic feats, or any tactical feats, or anything other than one high ability score, it's not as powerful as it looks.
Fourth, I think that this would be a lot more realistic and reasonable than not. As we all know, if a person spends years lifting weights, or spends years reading and learning, or spends a year exercising, he's going to end up stronger, smarter, or hardier than when he started- and yet, by the rules of the game, there is no way to adjuducate this without involving magic. True, there are always inherent bonuses, but not every commoner has access to the hundreds of thousands of GP needed for a Tome of Understanding +5 or Wish spells- and even if a DM feels like giving out inherent bonuses in exchange for a character's training, that's only limiting what he's going to be able to do once he DOES have money- as in that case, even Wishes won't have as much of an effect on a character who's spent years training in the mountains.
Fifth, that also takes much less emphasis on magical items. If the only possible way a character can increase his ability scores is by magic, then of course that's the way charactrers are going to want to go. Many DMs complain about PCs cheesing out their characters by buying all sorts of magic items to weasel their way into higher ability scores- this way, you're giving it to them in place of a feat. Chances are, feats are going to be much less plentiful than money. Also, in low-magic or low-point buy campaigns, it still gives PCs the chance to shine, if they're willing to expend some resources for it- because face it: a PC with all low ability scores is no fun to play, and certain heroic deeds simply aren't possible with your highest stat at a 15 for the entire campaign.
Sixth, I think that this would make Fighters more appealing. Most people complain that the Fighter is the weakest class in 3.5- because all they get is feats. With this system, however, ability score increases can only be bought with non-class feats, and in that case, a person with many ability score increases isn't going to have many feats for anything else- Fighters, however, have many more class feats, and would therefore be able to increase their ability scores, and still get many feats usable in battle like Power Attack, Spring Attack, or Iron Will.
And seventh, I just think that too many DMs are obsessed with keeping their PCs powerless. Any attempt at trying to make their character more powerful is met with XP penalties and criticism. Whatever happened to when D&D was supposed to be about having fun? And if a character would rather have a higher Strength score than taking another feat, and the rules simply won't let him, where's the fun being had?
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Feel free to criticize, just please be rational.
)
