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

[ced1106]

If you try to include all the various feats from all the different sources out there (WotC splatbooks, Dragon mag, d20 publishers), you are definitely going to have too many feats on your hands. You need to be selective. Some feats as written will not work for everyone's game, however a lot of folks feel they need to include everything. Take what you want, leave the rest.

There is no reason to make Power Dive a feat if you want every flying creature to be able to do this. For that matter, you can do this for any number of feats. Personally, I like the fact that they are feats to begin with. It's a nice little set of rules that detail complicated maneuvers and game mechanics. Keeps things nice and organized, IMO. However, a lot of the time, I find myself tweaking feats from their original sources until they're acceptable to me.

If nothing else, it gives you an idea how to adjudicate a certain mechanic if it comes up in a game. So the polymorphed wizard wants to Power Dive. Great! You could come up with your own mechanics (what is his AC? His damage? etc, etc, etc.)...or you can look at Power Dive first and decide if you like that, and then go from there.

Just don't feel you have to do something just because it's written down in the rules somewhere. Rules get revised anyways, so I hear.

Excellent post. As someone who's had to patch AD&D with many a house rule, Feats offer a patch without requiring changing the core mechanics. That's a good thing -- your players don't have to be persuaded to accept additional rules to an existing system. I'd like to add that if you find a Feat that many NPCs or creatures should have, **give them the Feat for free**. Your players won't know, and **you're** the GM.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Celebrim]

I happen to like feats. I personally wish more emphasis had been placed on creating good feats and less emphasis on PrC's. More well designed feats is a good thing. Less time wasted creating PrC's is a good thing.

But that said, I do find too many feats are just general combat manuevers and should have been introduced as a new combat manuever. I think RapidBob hit the nail on the head when he noted that if every action is introduced as a new feat, that characters are forced to become narrower and narrower - which is I think exactly the opposite of what we want.

Imagine if 'charge', 'trip', 'bull rush', 'fight defensively', 'grapple', 'disarm', and 'sunder' were all feats.

The action should be a feat only if introduces some extraordinary advantage.

Once a combat manuever is introduced, then you can start a feat chain for it if necessary (Improved Verb, Superior Verb, Supreme Verb).

I like the core feats. They need only a little tweaking. Notably Skill Focus should be +3, Rapid Shot should be -3 to hit, the Track mechanic probably needs some work, and Alertness and the like should be replaced with 'Pick two skills, and make up a reason why you are naturally skilled in them. You are +2 with those two skills.'

I also like adding alot of non-core feats, but these need more tweaking on average (either up or down), and are generally less well done.

 

[Henry]

Me, I'm wondering how you got your Keep Wife Happy skill check so high.....

+2 Circumstance Bonus for the "apologize for being an unthinking male" feat - sorry, I didn't think about writing that one down...

 

[Mark CMG]

Once a combat manuever is introduced, then you can start a feat chain for it if necessary (Improved Verb, Superior Verb, Supreme Verb).

Feat design rule #2. Good show!

 

[RabidBob]

Feat design rule #1. Welcome back RabidBob.

Hey, thanks!! It's good to be back, and suprising (but very pleasing) that anyone remembers me! Still no gaming group though (can you believe I've only ever gotten to play 3E twice!!).

 

[Mark CMG]

Hey, thanks!! It's good to be back, and suprising (but very pleasing) that anyone remembers me! Still no gaming group though.

How can I forget the irony (and rarity) of a fella with your name who never foams at the mouth while posting.

I had thought that the UK was fairly plentiful in the gamer department...

 

[Nail]

+2 Circumstance Bonus for the "apologize for being an unthinking male" feat - sorry, I didn't think about writing that one down...

Ah! I thought maybe there was a synergy bonus in there I was missing.....

I can't wait to take another level in Working Stiff so I can get a new feat. I'll keep Gender Apologist in mind.

 

[eris404]

I happen to like feats. I personally wish more emphasis had been placed on creating good feats and less emphasis on PrC's. More well designed feats is a good thing. Less time wasted creating PrC's is a good thing.

I agree with this absolutely. So many prestige classes are simply a dressed up feat. I want my character to do X action, so I'll write a class based around that. Don't get me wrong, I still like PrCs, but I think that so many were poorly designed and for no other purpose than to introduce some new mechanic that would have been better served as a new (house) rule or spell or feat.

But that said, I do find too many feats are just general combat manuevers and should have been introduced as a new combat manuever.

Yes, but I'd even go a bit further and say that I think that too many feats are combat-oriented anyway. Sure, I understand that since they are the fighter's "thing" it makes sense that most feats should be about fighting, but I just wish they had a little more variety. I think some of the feats from the "class books" do a good job of this.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I like feats. I like lots of feats. They're pretty much all distinguishes different characters of the same class at the same level, when comparing character sheets.

This is how I'm handling the Tons Of Feats problem in my upcoming campaign.

I downloaded one of those huge feat netbook thingies. Not the standard Netbook of Feats, I think, but very similar.

I didn't want to overwhelm my players with 400 new feats. They aren't going to want to read all that. Probably nobody wants to read more than, say, 20 new feats. At most.

So I decided to make "Organizations" (a loose term that could be anything from a thieves guild, a temple, or a fighting school). All characters start as members of an organization. Each organization provides access to a special selection of feats. The characters do not have to pick any of these if they don't want to. NPCs have the same selection options.

For example, a fighter who studied with the Blades might gain access to twenty or so nifty attack feats, while a Monk who studied at the Cloud Dojo has certain monk-specific, movement oriented feats, while the Fang Dojo teaches ways to focus Ki into new attack options.

The more feats are available, the more options there are for creating truly unique characters.

--predicted argument--
"You should differentiate characters through personality and role-playing skills, instead of adding schmoodles of new rules (feats)!"

--rebuttal--
Some players are better role players than others because of their own personality. Should they be the only ones allowed unique characters? Some of my players struggle to have a conversation in-character, let alone express their character's unique personality and style. New feats, not all of which are combat-oriented, mind you, allow all players to have equally unique characters.

<more arguements after people finish tearing apart this one. Waiting...>