Too many feats!

[nittanytbone]

The problem is that a lot of feats out there are garbage.

They're either (A) worthless or (B) broken.

Just take core only. How many characters have you ever seen that take Self-Sufficient as a feat?

Likewise, in the expansion books, there are a lot of "wasted" feats that provide little or no benefit except perhaps as a PrC entry requirement. That's a lot of garbage to wade through to find the good stuff.

 

[el-remmen]

No such thing as too many options.

I heartily (and respectfully) disagree.

 

[thosfsull]

Have you guys ever read a book by a Barry Schwartz called the Paradox of Choice? It is an interesting thought that too much actually harms us.
http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005688

I would assume that a point based system like Gurps MIGHT be easier to use all these feats and special abilities with than a level based game like D20.

However, I heard people have redesigned feat aquiring and even ranked them in tiers to allow minor feats and easier swallow for the player.

 

[Arnwyn]

No such thing as too many options.

There is, actually, and it's been documented in a number of business books.

Have you guys ever read a book by a Barry Schwartz called the Paradox of Choice? It is an interesting thought that too much actually harms us.

That was the very first book I was going to mention.

You, sir, win this thread.





[*Ahem* Sorry for the hijack.]

 

[Crothian]

There are too many feats, too many crappy ones, and not enough interesting ones. I do give a feat a level and I limit the books that a particular campaign can make use of.

 

[Infiniti2000]

However, I heard people have redesigned feat aquiring and even ranked them in tiers to allow minor feats and easier swallow for the player.

That's a key point and why I think that systems such as 1 feat per level or 1 feat per 3 levels or whatever does not in practice really work. Not all feats are created equal, so two otherwise identical characters with different feats may not be equal. Perhaps, it's not always about balance, but it shows us that a feat is not always a feat. Some sort of ranking system/cost system (such as SKR's) should be used.

 

[Psion]

I do give a feat a level and I limit the books that a particular campaign can make use of.

Games should have a particular focus... a game world or a style (like swashbuckling, desert, etc.) Choose books that highlight your campaign and allow players to build into that focus. I mean really, what players are going to take sandstorm feats if they will never be useful to them... those options may as well not be there.

Also, there is the option of expanding feats as well. There's a thread kicking around the house rules forum somewhere called faster feats or somesuch.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you think there are too many feats in the game, the solution is pretty simple: use less books.

Most of the books WotC publishes have a pretty clear purpose (with the exception of things like the PHBII, or compilations like the Spell Compendium). They expand options for a specific character type, race, or campaign setting. If you start by ignoring books that are for campaign settings your not in, races you don't play, etc, you'll cut out a huge percentage of the extra feats.

Also, I think it is quite reasonable for a DM to say that non-core feats must be approved on a case by case basis, instead of allowing everything and disallowing them on a case by case basis.

 

[Particle_Man]

PHB II has a list of character "Feat trees" in the back for many classes. It would be simple enough to eliminate the paradox of choice by narrowing your focus to a) one of these classes, and not a multi-class, and b) pick one of the three feat trees listed for that class.

I started my Hexblade idea off of the "skirmisher" feat tree in PHB II. I changed a few things (instead of Dash I will try a Reserve Feat from Complete Mage, should I make 15th level) but overall I am happy with it. It may not be absolutely optimal, but it does eliminate the "Too many feats" problem.