Regional Feats Standard?

[Silveras]

Uh, by my reading of the FRCS regional feats are not free. Rather, they are feats you can only buy if you come from a certain region (and some other stuff that isn't relevant).

Did this change somewhere?

Regions and Regional Feats are re-defined in the the Players Guide to Faerun (and I think either Underdark or Races of Faerun has the revision of Regions as well).

 

[Sammael]

As a sidenote, using Knowledge (local) 2 ranks as a require for a Regional Feat would make it impossible to take a Regional Feat at 1st level (you choose skills after feats at CharGen).

Incorrect. Page 6 of 3.5 Player's Handbook clearly states that skills are chosen before feats at character creation.

 

[Psion]

Hmmm... +2 to three skills vice two for being from a certain region? I'm a bit dubious.

AFAIAC, Second World Sourcebook did "regional feats" rights with their backgrounds. The background can cost a feat (depending on the game), and is based on the starting occupations of d20 modern, but is a bit more even handed. Basically, you get three "skill picks" which give you a skill as a class skill, or a +1 if it already is. You can trade two of these picks for a feat from a specified list. This way, you can use existing feats as part of your "regional concept" package, and you can also include class skills, which would logically play into one's background.

 

[BryonD]

I actually like them a bit.

Yes, power for RP cost is bad.
And, yes, power creep is also bad.

But I don't see this as a notably awful case of either.

I think that if the option of a kickstart improved feat had been built into the system from the dawn of 3E, it would have never been an issue.

If you drop it into an existing campaign where other characters do not have it, then that would obviously be a problem. But that is simple, do not allow them until you start a new campaign.

But as-is the idea does not throw balance out of whack.
Remember to give them to your NPCs as well and the overall effect is a very tiny shift in favor of humanoids over monsters.

 

[reiella]

Incorrect. Page 6 of 3.5 Player's Handbook clearly states that skills are chosen before feats at character creation.

Ah interesting, and good. I either misread my 3.0 PH or another change from 3.0 . A decent order change in any event.

Remember to give them to your NPCs as well and the overall effect is a very tiny shift in favor of humanoids over monsters.

Ah, also not true . Especially for the Underdark regions. Most monsters also qualify for many of the Regional Feats as well. Of course, I think if your PC starts facing Monsters that all happen to be from Underdark(Sloopidoopindgal) [sp] in order to maximize benefit of their power level, you'll see a degradation in the variety of the monsters involved. Which probably shows one of the problems that occurs regardless of if you consider the Regional Feat as a "Ramped Up Feat" ok or not. That certain regions have more powerful feats than others.

[ Add ]
And even if it is a really minor power creep, it is still a power creep, and hopefully not a Sign of Things to Come.

I am hoping that we won't be seeing a "Complete Elf" book anytime soon.

 

[BryonD]

Ah, also not true . Especially for the Underdark regions. Most monsters also qualify for many of the Regional Feats as well. Of course, I think if your PC starts facing Monsters that all happen to be from Underdark(Sloopidoopindgal) [sp] in order to maximize benefit of their power level, you'll see a degradation in the variety of the monsters involved. Which probably shows one of the problems that occurs regardless of if you consider the Regional Feat as a "Ramped Up Feat" ok or not. That certain regions have more powerful feats than others.

Ehhh, I think you are way over thinking this.

Obviously, some monsters can get the feats. But most won't simply because it will not be any big benefit.

If you are in area A and encounter a lot of monsters with the Area A feat, then what is the problem? (recalling that I still don't see any CR/ECL swinging perks in this idea)

If you are in area B and encounter a lot of monsters "from" area A just so they can have a feat, that is not dumb rules, that is a dumb DM.

Not even slightly a problem.

 

[BryonD]

[ Add ]
And even if it is a really minor power creep, it is still a power creep, and hopefully not a Sign of Things to Come.

I am hoping that we won't be seeing a "Complete Elf" book anytime soon.

Well, like I said, power creep is bad. But I look at these and for the most part I just don't see even slightly a problem. There are a couple specific exceptions. But there are a couple poorly thought out feats in most books lately. Specific examples that are bad do not make the concept bad.

Things to come are simply that: "to come". Judge this on its own merits. If they do something stupid in the future, so be it. Someone can say that regional feats should have been a sign, and they may even be right. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the rules as cuurently published are a problem.

 

[reiella]

Things to come are simply that: "to come". Judge this on its own merits. If they do something stupid in the future, so be it. Someone can say that regional feats should have been a sign, and they may even be right. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the rules as cuurently published are a problem.

And I'm just hoping it isn't a sign of things to come, as I said . It was a judge of its merits, and the resultant philosophy change that may be present in the D&D/FR design staff.

By its own merits, I won't allow the regional feats, even the minor "Save +1" and "Skill +1" feats. And I feel that they are a minor power creep, again as I said.

Of course, if a situation where all monsters are from a particular region for a feat benefit is a sign of a bad DM, then what is it when all player's are from a particular region (or region-set) for a feat benefit?

Having characters with a similiar back history makes the First Adventure a bit easier on the DM at least.

Ah spelling correction finally available, Sloopdilmonpolop. There we go.

And it ultimately goes down to a difference of opinion, and I don't agree with the philosophy of needing to "Carot the players" to have background or "Carot the players to roleplay in a certain manner". I also disagree with the premise that even minor power creep is acceptable (Saves+1, Skills+1). And of course, prolly a larger brunt, I disagree that all the Regional Feats have such a marginal power increase as the Saves+1 and Skills+1. Just have to agree to disagree on that whole Power Creep in PGF then I suppose .

More on topic.
I like the general concept of Regional feats, but I dislike the premise that they need to be more powerful. In fact I -really- like Axethrower as it fills a sympathetic niche and is really an inverted Weapon Finesse. A couple others are interesting at least, Arcane Schooling (although I'd perfer without the +1 caster level). But again, I'd really perfer them as "feats that are balanced regardless of any campaign specific requirements/background requirements/thematic requirements", from a published book at least. The variance in campaigns for 'effectiveness' of those requirements is too great (even within the Realms) for it to be a reliable or consistant balance mechanic.

[ Curious Question of the Moment ]
Does the Red Wizard in the 3.5 DMG require Tatoo Focus? As I noticed at least Hathran still requires a regional feat to join.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I much more prefer regional PrC's.

Axe-Fighter of Blargh is a great idea for a PC, and a great way for an axe-wielding warrior to migrate to. It can have many abilities, arranged over, say, 5 levels. This allows us to focus more in on the region, on things that people from Blargh would have (maybe they're known as potent arcanists in Blargh, and so Axe-Fighter of Blargh would require some arcane abilities). It typifies the character more.

The FR method is to give Axe-Fighter of Blargh as a feat that, I dunno, gives you the Improved Critical feat with axe-class weapons automatically.

I'd prefer a non-power-creeping location-based PrC rather than a single feat that gives a big bonus.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Ah interesting, and good. I either misread my 3.0 PH or another change from 3.0 . A decent order change in any event.

As I recall, it was always "skills first", since I remember an example about taking Mounted Combat on level 1 despite its skill requirement.