Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1210813" data-attributes="member: 1465">Although FrankTrollman is not exactly delicate in his way of "expressing himself", I mostly agree with him (this time).The general idea of trying to weight different feats is not wrong itself, and it is based on the common agreement (even quoted by the rulebooks themselves) that not all feats are equal. But the implementation of the idea is off and indeed completely based on opinions I don't necessarily agree with.First of all, note that he starts by choosing benchmark feats and giving them 10 points. 10 is also the number of feat point given every time the PC would normally gain a feat. Then, after Sean's analysis, it comes out that almost all the feats are worth less than 10, possibly the average being around 8-9. Apart that this could have pointed out that maybe 10 feat points every time is too many, and it should be readjusted to 8 or 9. But in my opinion it just shows the author's real idea: PCs should get more feats. Then give them more feat!I agree that as a house rule it could be done so that if you have chosen suboptimal feats for roleplay reasons, the DM maybe gives you 2 "poor" feats instead of one.The rules for pricing feats are at least arguable, and in some cases I am completely disagreeing. For example:1. Maybe. But I would like an explanation why Greater 2WF should cost 10 points when the extra attack granted is at -10 penalty. I think it depends too much on the feat.2. True.3. False. In my opinion, a +1 to AC is way better than a +1 to attacks. It is more difficult to get one. Furthermore, it is useful for everyone even the ones that never attacks.4. False. A bonus +1 has exactly the same effect as reducing a penalty by 1. On the other hand, it is true that if you start with -4 getting +2 doesn't help at all, while if you start with +4 the +2 lets you go over the top, but this is either a matter of who takes the feat, or otherwise it applies to those feats that typically takes away the starting "-4". Those feat as a matter of fact turn a quite unusable tecnique into an usable one, giving you more choices if not exactly more power.5. True.6. True. It basically means that if you need to activate a feat, it either requires an action or at least it is not always active.7. True.8. True.9. True.10. True.I want to point out anyway that except maybe #10 the other true are very obvious.Finally, his statement that a feat can have very different value for different characters is the most important thing, but also in my opinion the reason why this system is not worth its complexity.It is true that some feats are weak, and this system may help to see more common use for them which is a good thing. But how much? Besides metamagic feats which are awfully underpriced here, you will simply have about 15% more feats than normal, that is about 1 or perhaps 2 more feats in 20 levels... if you think some feats are worth 60% give them as half-feats as someone else suggested (although I may still disagree).</blockquote>

Verification