Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5723468" data-attributes="member: 4937">Agreed.  Which is why I said, "That's part of why I've refrained from creating feats that provide 'encounter' or 'daily powers', which typically has been the path many designers took to enhance feats (Monte's 'Might' series being one example)."Feats as they first appeared in 3e and as they largely are in the SRD are  static enhancments to character prowess of some sort, and by using the word 'feat' I tend to mean confining them to that traditional role.  They obviously could be expanded to include granting temporary boosts and so forth, and some people took that route in order to try to balance feats better with spells, but I deliberately avoided going that way for the reasons I outlined.  However, I do think that the feat can and should be expanded beyond its small role in determining character and into a larger one, I was just noting that unlike many designers who had tried to expand the role of the feat, my inclination was not to make them limited use powers.While I'm at it: Nothing.  I view powers and abilities to be feats of a sort, and essentially I do have several different categories of feats that characters might gain at different rates and times.   Indeed, I could probably define even the things I haven't defined as feats already, as feats, as for example a thieves special abilities, the cleric's domains, the champion's portfolio powers, and the fanatic's benefits of fanaticism could all be treated as feats - and would be if I thought I'd gain anything from it.  The problem with reversing this view point, and viewing feats as powers, is that powers are not normally shared across classes at all.  While this strongly silo's the classes/character's schtick, it results in a situation where you often find yourself needing to create a new class which has a set of available powers somewhere between and partly sharing the design space of the neighboring clases.  In my opinion, both 4e and Pathfinder are guilty of relying too heavily on the power or variant in place of feat model, resulting in situations where you write out more rules in order to give the player less choice.   While some of that may be necessary to avoid min-maxing, in many cases - like Pathfinder's fighter variant class powers - its closed design for no particular good reason.*  If you'd like to play a 10th level Arminger**/10th level Archer**, why should you need to argue for multiclassing a class with itself, rather than dipping into two combat feat trees which the general fighter class is given improved access to?(*not trying to edition war here.  I respect the PF designers quite a lot actually)(**not necessarily the names of real variants, but hopefully you get my point anyway)</blockquote>

Verification