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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6159296" data-attributes="member: 1465">While I think the original concept of feat chains was fine, I do agree that it had problems, but for me the main problem was that it was too rigid, i.e. there were always these "root feats" like Power Attack or Dodge and Mobility that you had to take just because they were prerequisites to the feats you were really interested in. This was IMO the way they wasted an otherwise fine concept. I probably wrote many times on these boards that I would have wanted to see how a feat system worked without any prerequisite for any feat.I must have a completely different experience about feats in 3ed, because never I have felt a feat was overpowered to the point of house ruling it. I didn't have that many 3e books to be honest, so this could be the reason why. In any case I've never banned a feat or toned it down with house ruling (while I've done that with a few spells, for instance). OTOH, some other feats were certainly weaker on average and could use a good bump up.Still, while in principle your idea of measuring a feat's worth is fine, I think it's wasted time, because those benefits are always going to be worth differently in different campaigns. So the only way to have a sensible measuring system is to make an assumption on what type of campaign and adventures are going to be played. This because feats cover wildly different things.That measuring system could be worth only for combat feats, in which case yes it is possible to measure their benefits in this way. Still, with only so many feats available per character, I couldn't care less if two combat feats were unbalanced unless the unbalance was really wide. I certainly wouldn't sacrifice an entire gamestyle (the fine-tuning character customization) only to prevent character #1 to end up have a few CP more than character #2 at level 20th <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> Which is going to happen anyway, and you know it, as soon as a splatbook makes the first mistake of offering an overpowered new feat.That's the new target. It wasn't so until last May. My point is exactly that this new target (which is itself based on a target of allowing a character with feats and a character without feats at the same table, but it is not the only way to achieve that) can cause damage to other parts of the game design. The first damage seen ahead is the elimination of a valid and fairly popular gamestyle from the game, -1 to the supposedly paramount target of inclusiveness of 5e.The second damage could be, that because it's impossible to balance combat benefits with non-combat benefits (since the latter are campaign-dependent), they may choose to silo the 3 pillars into each feats (like already suggested in this thread) which negates another valid gamestyle, that of being free of creating characters more slanted towards one pillar at the expense of the others.</blockquote>

Verification