Too many feats? (or - Why is this a feat?)

[Kahuna Burger]

As I was reading the new feats in Savage Species, I found myself occasionally thinking "why do we need a feat for this, again?" Big example : Power Dive. This a feat which allows the obvious (diving down and doing slam damage with your body), with a possible drawback (if you miss you do the damage to yourself). Why not just include this as a new mechanic? Worse, by including it as a feat, it by implication removes the ability to do it otherwise.

Player who has transformed into a griffin "I want to just dive down on him and knock him down."
DM "Do you have power dive?"
Player "huh? I just want to fly down at him, I'll do it at a penalty..."
DM "That takes a feat."

Are there too many feats? Moreso, are mechanics that should just be 'try it and see' turned into feats so no one but a high level fighter is gonna end up doing obvious things?

(yes, you could apply this logic to Power Attack. And I do. A less efficient form of power attack should be a default mechanic with a feat for the 1 for 1 tradeoff.)

-Kahuna Burger

 

[xrpsuzi]

Are there too many feats? Moreso, are mechanics that should just be 'try it and see' turned into feats so no one but a high level fighter is gonna end up doing obvious things?

Yes, there are too many feats. But I think they used feats in 3e mechanics to make things more clear cut. It's also a question of which feats you are looking at. Core feats? well, they are pretty general. But once you start opening up splat books, the feats come pouring in.

Personally, I think splat books and supplements include more feats because it assigns a game mechanic to a player's/gm's character development (i.e. well, if I want to be a sneaky archer fight type, or course I should be a deep wood sniper and need this and this ability...)

Now the question is whether that helps or gets in the way of people having fun and developing their character. I'm a big believer that someone can have too many options. I don't either is empirical or intrensic. I think it depends on the players, GM's and the game.

suzi

 

[LostSoul]

In a way, Feats can be limiting, as you've pointed out.

Look at Spring Attack. "I want to hit him and run by." Can't do that without Spring Attack.

 

[rounser]

Feats reduced the level of abstraction in D&D combat, which can be a Bad Thing in some ways. You've pointed out one of them.

 

[2WS-Steve]

One way to deal with this is to allow untrained use of the action in the feat at a -4 penalty on the attack check (or something similar for non-combat feats). This way you can use the feats as guidelines for how to handle particular actions without requiring their purchase.

 

[Jolly Giant]

In a way, Feats can be limiting, as you've pointed out.

Look at Spring Attack. "I want to hit him and run by." Can't do that without Spring Attack.

It's really the old playability vs. realism issue again...

And taking a swing at someone as you run by them, whitout giving him/her/it a chance to take swing back at you, sounds like a pretty difficult thing to pull off! I think it makes sense that Spring Attack has to prerequisite feats...

 

[barsoomcore]

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of feats (well, there's lots, but I just want to talk about two. Shut up.)

There's feats that offer a game mechanic for some tactic or other. Like Power Dive, or Choke Hold from OA. The problem with feats like these is that their existence can pose a bit of problem for someone who, say imagined a character as a pro wrestler but doesn't own Savage Species. Can they still jump down on someone and hit 'em real hard?

The other kind is like the one in the recent Dragon -- I forget the name, it's something like "Effective Riposte" or something -- allow a character to do something the rules expressly forbid, but only under certain conditions. Effective Riposte allows you to make an attack of opportunity against the chap you specified as the recipient of your Dodge ability, if he happens to miss you in combat. That's a GREAT feat. It defines a character (every duelist should have that feat), but doesn't impose some sort of restriction if you DON'T have it -- if you don't have it you can still do everything you thought you could previously.

It's not the end of the world either way, and I use Choke Hold in my campaign because you know, it's not necessarily straightforward to cut someone's breathing and knock them out.

Um, my two cents. After tax.

 

[LostSoul]

And taking a swing at someone as you run by them, whitout giving him/her/it a chance to take swing back at you, sounds like a pretty difficult thing to pull off! I think it makes sense that Spring Attack has to prerequisite feats...

That isn't the big deal; under the rules, you can't Move & Attack in the same round. Or am I mistaken? If you could do that (while taking an Attack of Opportunity), that would be fine with me.

 

[Tonguez]

Are there too many feats? Moreso, are mechanics that should just be 'try it and see' turned into feats so no one but a high level fighter is gonna end up doing obvious things?

Yeah I think I agree with you based on the example given

but that said I love feats and think their should be more. But it seems that
1. Core mechnaics need to be broadly defined yet clear (eg defining how a 'Slam attack' with natural weapons should be ajudicated)
2. Feats need to have a specific purpose which either bends/breaks the rules or adds 'style'
3. A Core Rule should state that "any attack for which a character is untrained or for which no rule exists is done at a -4 penalty"

 

[Shadowlord]

Yes, there are too many feats as there are too many prestige classes, too many books, too many... For ex, skills often remain untouched and you don't see more of those; skills remain intact.

I think we start seeing the problems with d20 now after 2.5 years. The basic copncept is great, but there's too much of everything that tries to use the same mechanic, which doesn't always work. Where's the time when something was powerful, had indeed a big benefit in rule terms? Now everything is too streamlined, with the "powerful bits" becoming no more a bigger benefit than any other feat or class, or...

I noticed that there should be more options in the "Special Actions" section; things like Disarm and Trip, they don't need a feat to work (only a feat to make it better).
What when a player declares he attacks the giant's knee caps to make it drop so he has access to the giant's eyes & head? How do you rule this? Or do you simply say "no you can't do that" ?