What should a feat do?
What is the measure of Balance a feat is judged by?
Should things that classes gain also be replicated by feats, or does that intrude too much into the sanctity of a Class? Some classes are based on giving Feats though, like a Ranger's fighting style.
With the Tome version of 3.X, should ALL feats scale with level/BAB/skill/etc., or is it still ok to fit in one-shot feats or prerequisites?
What separates Feat and Class ability?
Moderator: Moderators
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
What separates Feat and Class ability?
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Originally, feats were class features, for fighters anyway. They were also supposed to be NWPs. The mix didn't work that well.
If you were starting from the top, there's no real reason to have feats differentiated from class features, unless "feat" is just the gameterm for "class feature that may be selected by multiple types of characters." You could also have class features be actual powers, wheareas feats are numerical bonuses or whatever. The point is, you want to define your terms and then actually stick to their definitions.
But Tome's Frankenfixes work pretty well.
For homebrew 3.x, anything you want to be fairly exclusive or special should be a classfeature, whereas cool stuff that a wide variety of characters might want should be classfeatures: Twoweapon fighting? Widely useable. It's a feat. Rage? Iconic power. Should probably be a class feature.
Prereqs along the lines of most 3.x PrCs are stupid and should die in a fire. But some WotC feats are good enough by themselves that they don't actually need to scale to be worthwhile. Quicken Spell and the like. But other feats could be included in new scalingfeats that you write.
If you were starting from the top, there's no real reason to have feats differentiated from class features, unless "feat" is just the gameterm for "class feature that may be selected by multiple types of characters." You could also have class features be actual powers, wheareas feats are numerical bonuses or whatever. The point is, you want to define your terms and then actually stick to their definitions.
But Tome's Frankenfixes work pretty well.
For homebrew 3.x, anything you want to be fairly exclusive or special should be a classfeature, whereas cool stuff that a wide variety of characters might want should be classfeatures: Twoweapon fighting? Widely useable. It's a feat. Rage? Iconic power. Should probably be a class feature.
Prereqs along the lines of most 3.x PrCs are stupid and should die in a fire. But some WotC feats are good enough by themselves that they don't actually need to scale to be worthwhile. Quicken Spell and the like. But other feats could be included in new scalingfeats that you write.
Last edited by Blicero on Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Just to state the obvious feats and PrC should occasionally have requirments, but those should make sense and serve a purpose.
Imo feats should also be something that seperates classes. As in, a fighter with power attack should feel and play different than one with whirlwind attack. But that would only work if feats are somewhat balanced, do interesting things and there are plenty to choose from.
I dislike feats that just give a numeric bonus too, they should actually open options and feel interesting.
Imo feats should also be something that seperates classes. As in, a fighter with power attack should feel and play different than one with whirlwind attack. But that would only work if feats are somewhat balanced, do interesting things and there are plenty to choose from.
I dislike feats that just give a numeric bonus too, they should actually open options and feel interesting.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
-
CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
It should go without saying, but class abilities can be less balanced than feats, because only one class gets them and they appear at a specific class level.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Well... Wild Companion feat gives an animal companion. Daring Outlaw gives sneak attack although to Swashbucklers only. Daring Warrior gives fighter feats to Swashbucklers.
You could have a Rogue 3/Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 13 with the animal companion essentially of a druid, 8d6 sneak attack and an extra 8 (?) feats.
A Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Monk 18 with Wild Companion, Ascetic Hunter and Ascetic Rogue has the abilities of an 18th level monk, 20th level monk unarmed damage, 19th ranger favored enemies and 9d6 sneak attack... plus an animal companion.
Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel have a number of such feats.
You could have a Rogue 3/Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 13 with the animal companion essentially of a druid, 8d6 sneak attack and an extra 8 (?) feats.
A Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Monk 18 with Wild Companion, Ascetic Hunter and Ascetic Rogue has the abilities of an 18th level monk, 20th level monk unarmed damage, 19th ranger favored enemies and 9d6 sneak attack... plus an animal companion.
Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel have a number of such feats.
I just checked, and Daring Warrior doesn't give Swashbucklers extra bonus feats. It just lets Swashbucklers qualify for fighter specific feats as if they were a higher fighter level. So a Fighter4/Swashbuckler16 would be able to pick up Weapon Supremacy or whatever that 18th level Fighter feat in PBH2 is.
Unfortunately since they don't get the bonus feats, and the feats they gain access to through that suck anyway, Daring Warrior is pretty much shit. Daring Outlaw at least is nice.
Unfortunately since they don't get the bonus feats, and the feats they gain access to through that suck anyway, Daring Warrior is pretty much shit. Daring Outlaw at least is nice.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
The first time I saw those "multiclass feats" I liked the idea behind them.Previn wrote:Well... Wild Companion feat gives an animal companion. Daring Outlaw gives sneak attack although to Swashbucklers only. Daring Warrior gives fighter feats to Swashbucklers.
You could have a Rogue 3/Fighter 4/Swashbuckler 13 with the animal companion essentially of a druid, 8d6 sneak attack and an extra 8 (?) feats.
A Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Monk 18 with Wild Companion, Ascetic Hunter and Ascetic Rogue has the abilities of an 18th level monk, 20th level monk unarmed damage, 19th ranger favored enemies and 9d6 sneak attack... plus an animal companion.
Complete Adventurer and Complete Scoundrel have a number of such feats.
Do you think they're of equal value as a Tome Combat feat though?
Or are they simply a feat tax for something that should be a natural part of multiclassing?
Whoops, you're right. Daring Warrior is terrible as it doesn't give the extra feats. I would say it's a decent extra feat for a fighter, but... you'd be playing a fighter.Seerow wrote:I just checked, and Daring Warrior doesn't give Swashbucklers extra bonus feats. It just lets Swashbucklers qualify for fighter specific feats as if they were a higher fighter level. So a Fighter4/Swashbuckler16 would be able to pick up Weapon Supremacy or whatever that 18th level Fighter feat in PBH2 is.
Unfortunately since they don't get the bonus feats, and the feats they gain access to through that suck anyway, Daring Warrior is pretty much shit. Daring Outlaw at least is nice.
I'm not familiar enough with Tome to make a comparison between the two.OgreBattle wrote:Do you think they're of equal value as a Tome Combat feat though?
Or are they simply a feat tax for something that should be a natural part of multiclassing?
As for if they are a feat tax or not, it really depends on how your multiclassing works and what you expect out of it. For 3.5 I'd say they're good feats, and Daring Outlaw or Ascetic Hunter are around the power level I would have expected all the non-caster feats to be around.
Feat/class ability/skill effect is a hot mess.
If you want to avoid an AoO while moving, you use a skill effect. If you want to avoid an AoO while shooting, you need a class ability. If you want to avoid an AoO while tripping, you need a feat.
It's the same, except some designers decided to have three different mechanic for the same thing. Nobody knows why.
If you want to avoid an AoO while moving, you use a skill effect. If you want to avoid an AoO while shooting, you need a class ability. If you want to avoid an AoO while tripping, you need a feat.
It's the same, except some designers decided to have three different mechanic for the same thing. Nobody knows why.
My particular WTF with this is how crafting non-magical items (from swords to horseshoes to alchemist's fire) theoretically requires a skill check, while making [Super Awesome] magical items is completely 100% reliable and never fails - despite the cursed items lurking in the DMG that are theoretically produced by failed magic item creation.GâtFromKI wrote:Feat/class ability/skill effect is a hot mess.
If you want to avoid an AoO while moving, you use a skill effect. If you want to avoid an AoO while shooting, you need a class ability. If you want to avoid an AoO while tripping, you need a feat.
It's the same, except some designers decided to have three different mechanic for the same thing. Nobody knows why.
Well if you needed skill ranks to make magic items, then people would only make magic items if they auto succeed on the skill check anyway. It would just be a you must be this tall to ride hurdle which is well bull.
While with non magical gear, it (usually) doesn't cost as much (including time) and there is the 'realism' argument that can be made.
In my experience people like using skills to show they are a master crafter though they don't want any real risk when crafting items.
But I usually ditch the crafting rules and make my own anyway.
While with non magical gear, it (usually) doesn't cost as much (including time) and there is the 'realism' argument that can be made.
In my experience people like using skills to show they are a master crafter though they don't want any real risk when crafting items.
But I usually ditch the crafting rules and make my own anyway.