Splat-book access feats

[Cheiromancer]

What do people think about requiring characters to use a feat slot to gain access to the rules of a particular splat book? I mean the classes (base and prestige), feats and spells. Maybe starting magic items if a character isn't being made at first level.

I'm thinking that a character would otherwise be limited to the PHB and DMG, but would have more feats than usual; 1 for every odd level, say, instead of 1 for every 3 levels. Over 20 levels that would mean 10 feats instead of 7. They could spend these feats on PHB feats if they liked, or they could get access to 3 different books for their remaining feats, and still be even with the current default.

I think that the Spell Compendium might be unsuited for this, but a book like Complete Mage or Complete Arcane would be fine.

It should prevent the most extreme forms of cherry-picking, where a feat from one book is matched with a class ability of a different book and a prestige class level from a third; people could do this, but the cost in feats should make it less valuable.

A player with just the core books wouldn't have to worry as much about being underpowered compared to someone who collects everything Wizards puts out. They could spend all their extra feats on core materials, thereby counteracting the "splat-book power creep".

In game there could be particular regions or organizations which guard the secrets of a particular cluster of feats, spells and classes. Taking the feat could have a role-playing requirement of finding the right people and persuading them to share their knowledge with the players. Or it could be as easy as reading the right kind of Tome; a magical book which, when read, allows the PC to take the appropriate access feat.

Is this a bad idea? If so, why?

 

[Herzog]

It sounds good, but you might be in over your head if this is the only requirement for splatbooks you have.

My personal rule for non-core is: Yes, you can read any (splat)book to look up PrC's, base classes, feats, etc.
However, everything non-core has to be approved by me (the DM) before I allow it.
Allowing a feat for player A does NOT automatically mean player B can take it too. (since specific combinations might become unbalancing)

What you seem to be proposing is a game rule that removes that restriction from the players, allowing them to take anything they like as long as they spend a feat on it.

As an example, I would never allow an unmodified Arcane Hierophant in my games, while other options from the same book are under consideration.

Herzog

 

[Cheiromancer]

What you seem to be proposing is a game rule that removes that restriction from the players, allowing them to take anything they like as long as they spend a feat on it.

As an example, I would never allow an unmodified Arcane Hierophant in my games, while other options from the same book are under consideration.

Herzog

I agree with you about DM judgment, but this would make it easier for a DM to say "yes" without worrying about breaking the game. For example, if you are concerned that a prestige class is too easy to get into, this method would effectively increase the prerequisites by one feat. If a spell is too strong for its level, this method makes it a "prestige spell" that takes a feat to get.

Granted, if the prestige class and spell both come from the same book, then the one feat will do double duty. But I seem to recall reading that the splat books are usually balanced when taken alone (and with the core books)- it is only when they are combined do you have problems. The notion of access feats would mean that multi-book combos are automatically restrained.

 

[FireLance]

I adopt something similar to the RPGA and allow each PC one non-core option per level. This could be a race, a class or prestige class, a feat, a spell, a magic item or some other piece of equipment. A starting character can pick up to three non-core options in advance, to get a nonstandard race, class and starting feat.

 

[Herzog]

Don't forget that by 'automatically' allowing the introduction from splat-books, the chance you will be familiar with the new PrC, feat, spell, etc. will decrease.

If your only concern is gamebalance, that might not be a problem. However, I like to know ahead of time what I'm getting myself into when allowing rule additions of any kind.

Herzog

 

[Spatzimaus]

I don't think it'll work too well.

First, not EVERY feature of a splatbook is overpowered. Requiring a Feat to access those balanced bits is overkill.
Then, there are some splatbits that are horrendously overpowered, to where I wouldn't allow them at all. Requiring a Feat to unlock them is cheap at the price.
Finally, not all splatbooks are created equal.

Is the XPH a splatbook? If yes, then you're severely gimping psionic classes. If no, then you're allowing a source that has substantially more PrC options than any class gets in the PHB/DMG. If a Psion can get class X, but the Wizard can't take the arcane counterpart without spending a Feat, it's not balanced.

-------------------------

IMC, we simplify it. Not only do you have to get DM's approval on any non-core material you want your character to take (including ANY PrCs, or any multiclassing), you have to do it at least THREE levels in advance. (Decisions made at character creation cover levels 1-4, so you're free to multiclass early as long as that was part of your original character concept.) Major character changes shouldn't come out of the blue, the DM should have time to add the appropriate NPCs to the world, and the DM should have plenty of time to tweak the material until both player and DM are happy with the balance of the result.

 

[Nifft]

If I could take a feat and gain access to Ur-Priest... there's nothing you could do to make that balanced.

Informed DM judgment is required; there's just no way around that.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Li Shenron]

As long as you keep an in-game explanation for it, it's not a bad idea. It doesn't have to be regional or organization-based, it could just be that there is an "Advanced Warrior" feat which gives access to stuff in Complete Warrior, or a "Hero of Battle" feat, or a "Libris Mortis Knowledge". They could represent having spent time and training over the basics that open up the new options in those books, or even having studied over ancient books about undead etc...

I agree with those who would keep room for some DM's veto anyway, but the circumstances are few (otherwise, you just ban a specific book entirely).

Also, with specific regard to prestige classes, the feat for the book should not remove any of the in-game requirements, and viceversa the in-game requirements should not themselves require the feat.

For example, belonging to the Order of the Bow (for the Order of the Bow Initiate) should still be handled in-game, and should not be assumed by having taken the "Advanced Warrior" feat (unless your style of gaming is fully hack'n'slash with no regard to what happens outside action scenes).
On the other hand, the "Advanced Warrior" feat is not required to merely join the Order of the Bow, it is only required to enter the prestige class (not every member of the OotB necessarily has levels in the class, at least YET!).

To avoid a problem like the one with psionics, you could also give free access to 1 book beside the PHB to anyone.