Should feats be open or class specific?

[Sunseeker]

Don't forget that PCs aren't the only characters that use them. Many feats may be too weak for a PC, but just right for an NPC.

But that's really not true in 3.X systems. If a feat sucked, it generally sucked across the board. NPCs were built exactly like characters, and only gained feats that may be good but players didn't have access to because they had certain monstrous features. The thematic quality of a feat is a different measure and lots of statistically bad feats are thematically good for both players and NPCs.

Generally speaking however, bad feats were bad because another feat did the same thing, but better.

I agree with dbm, NPCs and monsters shouldn't use character-building rules. It's too much work for something that will likely last less than a few minutes.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Neither. Feats need to go. If an ability seems appropriate for a given class then just give it to the class. Otherwise feats exist solely to inform a character that without it they cannot or should not do something. Feats turn otherwise capable adventurers into pidgeon-holed repetition monkeys.

 

[sheadunne]

Feats should be class specific, skill specific, or resource specific. They should also scale based on level, skill points, or resources invested. Basically there shouldn't be feats, just put them elsewhere.

The other option would be to get rid of classes and dump all abilities into feats.

Cheers.

 

[ImperatorK]

That's an assumption which I don't subscribe to: I have found systems where the NPCs are made using different rules to the PCs are superior in play, especially for the GM.

And I didn't.

But that's really not true in 3.X systems.

Except it is true. you tend to want your PC to be optimal, because he has to survive somehow, thus you pick good feats. But NPCs/monsters, other than those that are supposed to be a challenge in a combat encounter, don't always have to be optimal, and in such cases feats that aren't great can be used by them for the flavor. Unless you're optimizing every monster and NPC in your game, even insignificant commoners?

If a feat sucked, it generally sucked across the board. NPCs were built exactly like characters, and only gained feats that may be good but players didn't have access to because they had certain monstrous features. The thematic quality of a feat is a different measure and lots of statistically bad feats are thematically good for both players and NPCs.

Generally speaking however, bad feats were bad because another feat did the same thing, but better.

That's nice and all, but I don't know what that has to do with what I said. Nowhere did I mention optimality, only that weaker feats can be useful by NPCs.

 

[Sunseeker]

Except it is true. you tend to want your PC to be optimal, because he has to survive somehow, thus you pick good feats. But NPCs/monsters, other than those that are supposed to be a challenge in a combat encounter, don't always have to be optimal, and in such cases feats that aren't great can be used by them for the flavor. Unless you're optimizing every monster and NPC in your game, even insignificant commoners?

There's no particular point in using the 3.X monster-building rules if you're not going to optimize them.

That's nice and all, but I don't know what that has to do with what I said. Nowhere did I mention optimality, only that weaker feats can be useful by NPCs.

But you're not arguing that they're "useful" you're even agreeing that they're sub-optimal. You're just saying that NPCs will use them because there's no motivation to optimize short-lived NPCs.

Which I agree with. Which is why I don't use 3.X monster-building rules even when I play 3.X.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The other option would be to get rid of classes and dump all abilities into feats.

Hey I'm all for that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's no particular point in using the 3.X monster-building rules if you're not going to optimize them.

That's much the same thing as saying there's no point in using the PC build rules unless you're going to optimize them.

In both cases, I think there's other things to be gained through customization.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's much the same thing as saying there's no point in using the PC build rules unless you're going to optimize them.

Frankly, I feel that's true. That's not to say I always optimize, but generally speaking I favor optimal choices over at least, asthetically pleasing but useless ones.

In both cases, I think there's other things to be gained through customization.

Sure, and I think it depends on what kind of a group you're in, what kind of a game you want to have. You can "optimize" for fun and for flavor as much as you can optimize for sheer power. Though I think those two could be made more viable choices in any game if we evened out the chasm between the two. There's really no reason why there shouldn't be colorful, fun, and flavorful yet also powerful choices.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Frankly, I feel that's true. That's not to say I always optimize, but generally speaking I favor optimal choices over at least, asthetically pleasing but useless ones.

To me, the big difference between 2e and 3e is that I can articulate my character's personality in the mechanics better. I often find myself taking skills or feats that serve little to no function in adventuring (Perform: Sing is my personal favorite) because they describe the character's proclivities with specificity, making him seem more human.

Sure, in any system I can say my character has a hobby, but 3e tells me exactly how good of a singer he is relative to how good he is at other things, relative to other people who can sing, and relative to an objective standard of aesthetic merit (the DC). Similarly, the Knowledge skills of a dragon I create give me more specific information on exactly what esoteric facts he knows, rather than leaving me as a DM to just make that up. There's nothing wrong with making stuff up, but the point of using detailed monster creation rules is so that the DM doesn't have to.

There's really no reason why there shouldn't be colorful, fun, and flavorful yet also powerful choices.

Maybe, but I think there's also a lot to be gained through mechanically "useless" or suboptimal choices.

There's plenty of room to use customization to make monsters interesting as well as powerful, ends which sometimes, but do not always coincide.

 

[Meatboy]

That's an assumption which I don't subscribe to: I have found systems where the NPCs are made using different rules to the PCs are superior in play, especially for the GM.

Generally the 'mental load' to create and run an NPC needs to be lower than a PC. The PCs are the focus of attention and need to be mechanically interesting for the long term. NPCs are foils to the PCs, the GM has to manage several of them at once and they are only 'on screen' for a relatively short period of time.

In addition, using a separate structure for monsters and NPCs brings back a lot if the mystery which a 'single design' model takes away - they could literally do anything where as having a specific palette of abilities to pick from is (in my experience) mentally limiting for both the players and GM.

And it was done that way for pretty much every edition appart from 3.x so there is a solid precedent...

This is how I feel too. I want my monsters to be flavorful yet easy to make and run.