(total frustration) There MUST be an Extra Feats Academy around somewhere here ...

[William Ronald]

So lessee...
1 - Fighter 1, BAB +1 (1), Will +0 (0), 1 Feat, 2 Flaws, +2 Feats, Human +1 Feat, Fighter +1 Feat (5)
2 - Fighter 2, BAB +1 (2), Will +0 (0), Fighter +1 Feat (6)
3 - Fighter 3, BAB +1 (3), Will +1 (1), 1 Feat (7)
4 - Fighter 4, BAB +1 (4), Will +0 (1), Fighter +1 Feat (8)
5 - Fighter 5, BAB +1 (5), Will +0 (0)
6 - Fighter 6, BAB +1 (6), Will +1 (2), 1 Feat, Fighter +1 Feat (10 total) *Now qualified for Sword of Righteousness if 2 of the previous feats were Exalted*
7 - SoR 1, BAB +1 (7), Will +2 (4), +1 Exalted Feat (11)
8 - SoR 2, BAB +1 (8), Will +1 (5), +1 Exalted Feat (12)
9 - SoR 3, BAB +1 (9), Will +0 (5), 1 Feat, + 1 Exalted Feat (14)
10 - Wiz 1, BAB +0 (9), Will +2 (7), +Scribe Scroll Feat (15), 1st level spells, Caster level +1 (1)
11 - Wiz 2, BAB +1 (10), Will +1 (8), Caster Level +1 (2)
12 - Wiz 3, BAB +0 (10), Will +0 (8), 1 Feat (16), 2nd level spells, Caster Level +1 (3)
13 - Wiz 4, BAB +1 (11), Will +1 (9), Caster Level +1 (4)
14 - Wiz 5, BAB +0 (11), Will +0 (9), +1 Wiz Feat (17), 3rd level spells, Caster Level +1 (5) *Now qualify for Wonder Worker*
15 - WW1, BAB +0 (11), Will +2 (11), 1 Feat, +1 Exalted Feat (19), Caster Level +0 (5)
16 - WW2, BAB +1 (12), Will +1 (12), +1 Exalted Feat (20), Caster Level +0 (5)
17 - WW3, BAB +0 (12), Will +0 (12). +1 Exalted Feat (21), Caster Level +0 (5)

In the end... 21 Feats over 17 levels, +2 Flaws
4 of which are Figher bonus, so pretty much combat geared only
2 of which are required to be Metamagic or Item Creation (wizard feats)
8 of which are required to be Exalted (6 from classes, +2 required to get into those classes)
leaving 7 which are truly open choices

Have you looked at the Flaws closely? Their penalties generally outweigh the benefits of a feat, to balance the likelihood that someone will select a flaw/feat pair that will give a benefit much more often than the penalty will come into play. You could *almost* count them as -2 feats.

The character now has about the same BAB as Clerics, Bards, Druids, and Rogues at the same level, with a slightly better Will save. Spellcasting is 12 levels behind a straight spellcaster.

I am not seeing much to the good in the trade-off.

I am not seeing the benefits of the tradeoff either. As a spellcaster, the character has little to offer a party of 17th level characters except to be a support character. However, a PC of 17th level could have a cohort of similar spellcasting level.. Nor is the fighting ability all that great either. I think this might be a useful support character, but I don't see the advantages. You have someone who can do many things, but perhaps not do something very well.

I don't think the path to having an effective character largely depends on feats. They should be seen as part of a large toolset to building effective characters. However, classes and class combinations often have more of an influence on the effectiveness of a character.

Edena, perhaps one thing that you could try in the Rules forum is to stat out this character. Then someone could create 4 characters -- a 17th level fighter type, a rogue, a cleric, and an arcane caster -- of 17th level to present as challenges on a one on one basis. Mind you, one on one challenges are relatively rare and are perhaps not the best way to gauge a character's effectiveness. Very often, I have seen characters work well together in a group and are able to defeat opponents by good teamwork.

 

[el-remmen]

Or you could just learn how to build a viable character with a concept you envision without using truckloads of feats...

That's actually pretty useful, since normally you simply do not have truckloads of feats!

Bye
Thanee

Heh. I said the same thing with fewer words and was ignored, so don't expect any different a result.

 

[ForceUser]

Heh. I said the same thing with fewer words and was ignored, so don't expect any different a result.

As have I. Edena's always been in his own world. You just roll with it.

 

[No Name]

Dungeon 117 had a minor artifact that awarded a permanent feat if your character made the DC.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

The Feat Master comes, apparently, from a legitimate d20 3rd party, so I can recognize it as such.
In such a case, it is possible to obtain 13 feats over 5 levels (+3, +2, +3. +2, +3.)

I have a new take on this:

The character classes - fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric, bard, etc. - are package deals. The normal feats you are allowed are in augmentations to that package.
So, you start with a package deal, plus the augmentation you took, and your 1st level character then tries to survive in a Hard World.

The Feat Master assumes a different reality, in which:

The character classes - fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric, bard, etc. - are package deals.
You start with that package.
Then, over the next 5 levels, you create a new package (a feat package) to augment the original package deal.
At 6th level, you now have the original package, plus the package you created, plus the normal augmentations for the game.
THEN you actually start advancing in the class of your choice.

In other words, the entire trip from 1st through 6th level was preparation to be a true fighter, cleric, wizard, or rogue. You don't actually start truly advancing in any of these classes until 7th level. You are a neophite in these classes until you reach 7th level.

The catch is: while you spend 5 levels gaining the package deal of feats, and remaining a neophyte in your class, everyone else is advancing in THEIR classes.
Thus, you start a crippling 5 levels behind everyone else. When they are 7th level warriors or wizards, you are 2nd level. You spent the time required to build and augment a really neat character package of character skills and feats, but at the cost of progression.

You must actually survive til level 7, to gain most of the benefits of your package deal. Until then, you must survive in a Hard World as a neophyte in your class.
From level 7 onward, you are better in feats than the other characters (you have 13 feats they do not) but you are 5 levels behind them.
The level and power of your opponents does not change.

That's a trade-off that sounds plausible. It assumes a slightly different reality, a reality in which characters train longer and advance more slowly, with the benefit of being more powerful in the long run.
It seems like a viable and legitimate option to me.

Of course, I have not played out such an option, so there is no way for me to make an accurate call. This is opinion only.

I would say that, like with the gestalt rules, either everyone has access to becoming a feat master, or nobody does. It can't be a one person has it, and the others don't scenario. That would be patently unfair, in my opinion.
If a character wishes to stack feat master with righteous warrior and wonderworker, that's his choice. In that case, he's REALLY behind everyone else, but is feat rich. You pays your money and takes your chances, as they say. And you have to be an exalted character to do this, and that's no easy thing (again, everyone in the party has to agree on exalted characters beforehand, too.)

-

I will continue to create characters (over in Rules) under the standard rules, plus the two flaws (which I, at least, think are worth the risk.) And see what I can come up with that is usable, effective, and fun. The practice characters created in this way do help me learn, and it is fun to create them (even if, adjudicating the skills level by level is sometimes a pain.)

 

[Staffan]

While it isn't extra feats as such, the Expanded Psionics Handbook has a psionic power called Psychic Reformation. It basically allows you to go back in time and make new level-up choices, thereby effectively giving you access to more feats (by swapping out the ones you have). It does have an XP cost though, so you can't use it indiscriminately.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Another option you might want to look at is the "Ritual Warrior" from Arcana Evolved. This character uses feats the way a spellcaster uses spells (So the character has a large selection of feats available, but has to choose which they want to apply.)

 

[WayneLigon]

If not, does WOTC or any d20 company recognize their rules as legitimate?

It does show that you've been away from some aspects of this hobby for a long, long time

One significant wake up call here: No-one gives one tinker's damn whether or not WotC views anything as 'legitimate' or not.

With the OGL and the d20 license, anything produced is as 'legitimate' as the next thing. Because of the OGL, in fact, a number of things appear in WotC prodcuts that originally debuted in other products.

Feats are like icing on a cake, A thin layer provides flavor, and decoration. A cake made entirely of frosting is a disgusting mess.

Since you're coming back into 3.5 'cold' so to speak, here's my suggestion. Don't bother with a single sourcebook, WotC or not. Play the game as written for a year or two, then start tinkering with the parts that you want to change.

After that point, if you still want more feats, look outside D&D. Look at Midnight, where you get a little something cool every level. Look at True20/Blue Rose. You do a get a feat every level there, plus some other cool things.

 

[Shazman]

I do agree that feats are a tool to add flavor and effectiveness to a character. They aren't the end in and of themselves, but a means to an end. That being said, a lawful good human, cleric1(with the war domain)/monk2/samurai2/fighter12/sword of righteousness3 would get a boatload of feats and would work well as a unarmored lawful good religious weapon master (kind of like Samurai Jack). Of course, you'd want to find a lawful good deity that has bastard sword or short sword as a favored weapon.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Thanks for the replies.
Let me show a different take on the subject of feats ...

In chapter 1 of the DMG, they describe balance. The way I see it, based on what I read, balance is: a fair chance for all the players to have an equal share of the fun (in a one-on-one game, a chance for the singular player to a fair chance at a lot of fun.)

Ok, so I have a definition of balance. I like this version of balance. I think this version of balance is great. I most certainly want it in my games.

That said ...

Most novels and films, if converted into D&D games with many players, wouldn't fit within the criterion of balance, as I'm defining balance above.
For example, we see Sam threatening Aragorn in Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring: Unhand him, or I'll have you, longshanks!!
We just know what would have happened, if Aragorn had been an enemy: squish.
In the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the children are not the equal of the Lion in terms of combat power.
In Harry Potter, our famous young mage is not the equal of the head of Hogwart's Academy of Wizardry and Witchcraft.

Ok, so all these are givens. We all know that characters in books and films are unbalanced.
We know you couldn't put such characters together in any adventuring party, and each of them have a fair chance to shine, relying on each other for survival equally. (Aragorn: Pippin, mighty hero, I am helpless! You are 10 times stronger than me, and only YOU can save Frodo, the Ring, and Middle-Earth! lol )

But I do wish to create the book characters, within the parameters of the rules.
I think it would be interesting to see what all these heros and heroines would be defined like, within the 3.5 rules.
I'm guessing many of you are at least curious, to see how they'd shape up.

What I'm finding is, you can't create these storybook characters within the rules.
This is PROBABLY because I don't understand the rules well enough to do it.
But it is possible that the limitations within the rules (on number of feats, on skills, on all things) makes it difficult.

Now, you could just say that these are epic characters. But I don't think all of them are. Many seem to be well under 20th level, but they can do things characters under 20th level can't do (or so it seems, to me.)

As I said, this is probably because I can't figure out, within the rules, how to recreate them. I'm just not knowledgable enough to do so.
But it is possible that the concept of balance is also in my way. Characters in books and films are generally unbalanced. They are oftentimes extremely unbalanced. (Heh: when that balrog showed up, it wasn't about balance. It was about ... RUNNING.)

I want to create these characters WITHIN the rules, be they WOTC or d20.
Only if I cannot do that, will I start creating house rules to create those characters.
Until then, you will see me beat my head against the stone wall (the limitations of the rules) as if I were a battering ram.

Looking for rules that grant additional feats is a part of this battering of my head against the stone wall.
And yeah (sighs) the Feat Master allows a lot of feats. But ... I guess ... it sorta seems unjustified. There is no flavor, no in-game explanation (no fluff, as you'all would say) to explain the class. So, I do not find the Feat Master to be the answer I was looking for.
I'm quite certain Aragorn, for example, did not start as a 1st level ranger, then spend 5 levels in Feat Master, before becoming a 2nd level ranger. It just doesn't fit. I can't fit a square box into a round hole.

On the other hand, perhaps Indiana Jones did take those 5 levels of Feat Master, before sojourning off on his adventures? lol ...