Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 7588109" data-attributes="member: 907">Have you looked at Iron Heroes, made by some hack named Mearls or something?Iron Heroes was intended as D&amp;D with little-to-no magic. It had a different set of classes, most of which focused on different ways of fighting (and were also buffed compared to 3e classes, to compensate for not having a Christmas tree of magic stuff). One of the ideas there was &quot;mastery feats&quot;.Essentially, these feats came in a variety of categories, like Power, Finesse, Ranged, Armor, and so on. The feats would be leveled, so you'd have Power Attack 1, Power Attack 2, Power Attack 3, and so on. In order to take a higher-level feat, you needed only the basic feat in that chain, as well as access to that feat level for that feat category. Each class would have different access to feat categories - berserkers would have great access to Fury and Power feats, but suck at Archery feats, for example (I think - I'm writing from memory, and haven't looked at those rules in over 10 years).There are two issues with comparing feats and spells, particularly high-prerequisite feats to high-level spells. One is the issue you bring up - spells are a limited resource in play, while feats are almost always permanent increases. The other is that high-prerequisite feats channel you into a narrow specialization. There's nothing stopping a wizard from learning both stoneskin, scrying, and confusion as 4th level spells, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a fighter with both Great Cleave, Improved Precise Shot, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.My initial comment was mostly off the cuff so one shouldn't put too much weight on the actual numbers in it. I just think 3e would be cooler if strong feats and flavor feats were siloed off from one another somehow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Staffan, post: 7588109, member: 907"] Have you looked at Iron Heroes, made by some hack named Mearls or something? Iron Heroes was intended as D&D with little-to-no magic. It had a different set of classes, most of which focused on different ways of fighting (and were also buffed compared to 3e classes, to compensate for not having a Christmas tree of magic stuff). One of the ideas there was "mastery feats". Essentially, these feats came in a variety of categories, like Power, Finesse, Ranged, Armor, and so on. The feats would be leveled, so you'd have Power Attack 1, Power Attack 2, Power Attack 3, and so on. In order to take a higher-level feat, you needed only the basic feat in that chain, as well as access to that feat level for that feat category. Each class would have different access to feat categories - berserkers would have great access to Fury and Power feats, but suck at Archery feats, for example (I think - I'm writing from memory, and haven't looked at those rules in over 10 years). There are two issues with comparing feats and spells, particularly high-prerequisite feats to high-level spells. One is the issue you bring up - spells are a limited resource in play, while feats are almost always permanent increases. The other is that high-prerequisite feats channel you into a narrow specialization. There's nothing stopping a wizard from learning both [I]stoneskin[/I], [I]scrying[/I], and [I]confusion[/I] as 4th level spells, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a fighter with both Great Cleave, Improved Precise Shot, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. My initial comment was mostly off the cuff so one shouldn't put too much weight on the actual numbers in it. I just think 3e would be cooler if strong feats and flavor feats were siloed off from one another somehow. [/QUOTE]

Verification