Purchasing feats?

[DreamChaser]

This has probably come up before, but I was just thinking: since characters are expected to use their wealth to gain magical items (or magical items count as part of their wealth) would their be a problem with allowing characters to pay (out the nose, perhaps) to gain a new feat?

Perhaps as a guideline, calculate how much a magical item would be that granted the use of that feat, then double or triple the price (since it couldn't be lost). Obviously there might be a time expendature as well.

The way I see it, a character would be forfeiting a potential magical item (and the ability it granted) to gain a feat.

What do you think?

DC

 

[Crothian]

If I were to go along these lines I'd have it cost gold, XP, and time. I could work though.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

One possibility is to give out a tome or other item which, when studied, bestows a particular feat upon the character. Each tome could be used only once. They would work much like the stat-boosting books.

As for cost, the only 3.5 example I can find is the Ring of Evasion (a class ability) which is 25,000 gp. That seems awfully high for just a feat, so you might consider that the top end for cost, starting at maybe 5,000 gp for weaker feats. The no space advantage doubles the cost of a basic item, which seems appropriate for gaining a feat permanently.

Hope all this makes sense.

 

[CombatWombat51]

Oh yeah, I think it's a neat concept.

I thought up a simple system for training for feats, but it's not done. It's burried in about the middle of this thread. Other good ideas in there, too.

 

[AeroDm]

It should work pretty seamlessly so long as you are a DM who adheres to the wealth charts pretty strictly. If you give out hordes of cash and they can use these to buy feats... then it will become a joke.

I'd for sure have it take large amounts of time as well. There is good flavor to players dropping cash and time to train with a master.

 

[Li Shenron]

If there is a magic item that replicates the feat, why would you want to have the feat instead? Only because the feat cannot be lost? I wouldn't care, it's part of the game, players still play Wizards even if the spellbook can be lost and it means a mostly useless Wizard afterwards. On the bright side, a magic item can be shared with other characters, and it can be sold if you later believe you don't need it anymore, so there's even some good in lacking permanency.

Otherwise if you want a feat which cannot be granted by any existing magic item, in general I am not against the idea of "buying" it through training. I would stay away from it however just because the process of pricing it is going to be painful.

There is something else. I am sure that everyone here has the idea that to train to get a feat would probably take a week or a month at most. Some DM roleplay training when the PCs level up, and they give the PC some downtime to represent the fact he has exercised in something to get a feat. I think the idea behind characters improvement is very different. A PC doesn't suddenly stop adventuring and say "I'll go training for a month, so that when I come back I'll be more skillful"; becoming more skillful (getting BAB, skills, feats, spells...) is the result of adventuring, and training happens at the same time. You see the result of your improvement only when you level up - but this is part of the abstraction of the game - and the player choose a new feat when the PC reaches the level, but to the character it has taken 3 FULL LEVELS OF TIME to achieve that improvement. That's how much time is required to get a feat: what we need here is some house rule for intensive training, but I don't think I would base it on time, but instead on level-time.

 

[the Jester]

In my experience, character wealth is the hardest aspect of character advancement for a dm to control. After all, what if one pc takes all the loot and nobody else cares?

If my 1st-level fighter has bought 3 extra feats, he's substantially tougher than a standard 1st-level fighter. Worse, if the pcs haven't got any extras yet and they fight a 1st-level npc with a couple of extra feats, is he still CR 1? Do you subtract the value of his extra feats from his gear? Does that then mess up the carefully calibrated treasure system?

I think it can get out of hand too quickly.

Now, magic books- read once, gain a feat- or other weird very rare sorts of things (magic fountains, etc) are ok in my book; I used one once. I think the difference is that I think feats should be valued very highly and priced appropriately.

 

[stevelabny]

the easiest way to keep it from getting too out of hand is to put a cap on how often it can be done.
In the game I play in, you can purchase a feat once a level with XP, gold, and the right teacher/book.
My character has been ahead of the group in XP all along (being the only original character of the campaign) and is the only one who has "bought" extra feats.
Of course, I'm a rogue/bard...so all the extra feats do is make me not be completely useless.
As long as the DM realizes that each extra feat will affect the party and adjusts their effective party level and encounters accordingly,there should be no problem.

 

[Stalker0]

the easiest way to keep it from getting too out of hand is to put a cap on how often it can be done.
In the game I play in, you can purchase a feat once a level with XP, gold, and the right teacher/book.
My character has been ahead of the group in XP all along (being the only original character of the campaign) and is the only one who has "bought" extra feats.
Of course, I'm a rogue/bard...so all the extra feats do is make me not be completely useless.
As long as the DM realizes that each extra feat will affect the party and adjusts their effective party level and encounters accordingly,there should be no problem.

One other way to do it is as part of the cost of the feat use skill points and wealth. The wealth represents the cost of private instruction, and skill points some of the time spent on the feat not dedicated to your other skills.

A few justifications for this:

1) It doesn't extinct the fighter. Skill oriented classes that depend on their skills, won't just go jumping to get new feats and forget about the fighter class. Likewise, fighters with low skill points can't just throw their skills away for even more feats if you make the skill point cost restrictive.

2) It makes int important for fighter types.

3) It's realistic. Higher int types will be more able to gain these feats, it represents the scarcity of time, and helps to keep the power somewhat in check.

4) Its flexible. You can move cost between wealth and skill points (a more expensive teacher can teach faster = less skill cost.... a slow but cheaper one less cost more skill points).