• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Marionnen's Musings: Featless?

airwalkrr

Adventurer
Herein I discuss the removal of level-based feats from the game in the interest of reducing complication and reducing the amount of character planning involved:

I once touched on this on my EN World blog. In my quest to find simpler ways to run and play D&D 3.5 (particularly at high levels), I have done a lot of thought experiments and house rule experiments in my campaigns. One of the simplest ideas I think I ever came up with was to completely take feats out of the game. The idea might sound crazy, nigh irrational. After all, aren't feats one of the things that really makes 3.5 unique and customizable? But one thing I have noticed after over a decade of DMing is that feats are things players tend to agonize over. And they are entirely unnecessary. That's right, entirely unnecessary. I think the game works just fine if you get rid of feats.

So what exactly do I mean when I say get rid of feats? Well, I don't mean all feats. After all, the fighter has nothing if he doesn't have feats. There are basically two ways of approaching this. The simplest is to say that characters do not receive level-based feats. So the feats you get at 1st, 3rd, 6th and so on are entirely cut out. Class-based feats remain. Do this for monsters too and everyone is basically on a level playing field. The feats that add bonuses to monster stats are a little harder to extricate, but in my experience, they matter so little that the work to remove things like +2 from Iron Will is unnecessary, but you can do it on the fly with a bit of simple arithmetic. So characters would still get to pick bonus feats based on class such as fighter bonus feats. It is only the level-based feats that would be affected.

The second way to do this is to codify the exact feats that classes like the fighter and the wizard receive, such that they have no choice in the matter. "No choice in the matter? So my character is a cookie-cutter character?" Not exactly. There are still ways to customize your character. You can still multiclass and arrange your stats the way you want them. And classes like the fighter would probably have at least three paths to choose from. For example, one path would be for archery, one for two-handed weapon fighting, and one for sword-and-shield fighting (two-weapon fighting would remain the demesne of the ranger).

Bear in mind all of this is in the interest of simplifying character creation and encouraging players to try new things. With simpler rules for character creation it would be easier for a player to pick up two or three different characters (at a time) and give them a try without having to worry about planning the character out too much. I haven't tested this to its fullest extent, but I think it is worth considering, and I am leaning towards giving this a try for the new campaign I run.

One of the primary barriers I see to this is the fact that I tend to run my games in Eberron and it gives characters no technical means to acquire dragonmarks. Perhaps I could make dragonmarks character traits a la Unearthed Arcana. I also understand that 4e had a different mechanism for dealing with this which might warrant a look. Another means is to simply require some type of trade-off. A fighter could trade a bonus feat, or a cleric might trade a spell slot. But this will take a little bit of thought. Your comments are welcome!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So we're removing Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, Power Attack, Mounted Combat... I'm tired, that's all I got for right now ;). But you have in effect cut down quite a lot of specific abilities that are contained in feats.

At this point let's just play 2e or 1e, right?

Slainte,

-Loonook.
 

Speaking for myself and those I play with, we like pouring over the details in character creation. Feats, gear, spell selection, multiclass combos... the very reason we play 3.5 is for the versitility of options. Making a character is it's own minigame.

I agree that your proposal would make things simpler, and likley stay ballanced. But for me and mine, we don't want simple.

To each their own.
 

Are you also going to remove the ability of spellcasters to choose their spells?

Because that's the analogue* - the Wizard chooses spells and the Fighter chooses feats.

* At least, that's the intention. It turns out that nobody really considered this terribly well, and so the feats (especially the ones at the top of the chains) are nowhere near powerful enough.
 

Are you also going to remove the ability of spellcasters to choose their spells?

Because that's the analogue* - the Wizard chooses spells and the Fighter chooses feats.

* At least, that's the intention. It turns out that nobody really considered this terribly well, and so the feats (especially the ones at the top of the chains) are nowhere near powerful enough.
Note that he said Fighters would still choose feats, since that is what the class is based around.
 


I think you're looking at a major system overhaul here, but one that could be pretty fruitful.

1) Take away natural feat progression
2) Classes with bonus feats still get them
3) Make the combat feats way better, since the fighter needs something
4) Throw away most or all prestige classes

Could be an interesting way to streamline the game. I'd be tempted to use something like E6 instead, but I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

If you look at my previous blog post, you'll also note I have some thoughts on changing iterative attacks to make them far more useful to the fighter.

And for the record, I would in fact be much happier with a system wherein wizards do NOT receive spells for free when they level up. They would have to find them as treasure or learn them from another wizard.

Why not go back to 1e? Well, I love 1e, but no one will play it (at least not enough to get a decent number of players). My favorite thing about 3e is that the system is internally consistent, something that is not true of 1e and 2e.
 

Are you after streamlining play, or streamlining prep? One is not the other.

Players may agonize over choosing feats (for me: a feature, not a bug), but it's essentially out-of-game activity. It doesn't slow down play at all. On the other hand, I've seen play slowed by the wizard not being able to decide what spell to cast ...
 

And for the record, I would in fact be much happier with a system wherein wizards do NOT receive spells for free when they level up. They would have to find them as treasure or learn them from another wizard.

I played and started DMing in 2e, and I just do not get this mindset. Is it just flavor? Seems kind of restrictive. (It's why I avoid grim and gritty campaigns. Fun only for the DM.)

Is it about game balance? Because I think that's a terrible way of doing it. If a spell is overpowered or troublesome, rewrite or ban it. Never giving a wizard a scroll of Rope Trick seems a poor way of "balancing" the spell.

Now onto the non-fighter classes. Would rogues get Weapon Finesse for free?

Would specialist wizards get Spell Focus for their school? Etc.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top