The Gaming Den

When I began to reflect upon 3rd Edition rules, the first thing which seemed totally arbitrary was the distinction between a class feature and a feat. This lead to the question: Why design a class based game and then decide to include a generic part?

Is it not much more desirable to design a scout class, if you want to make a sneaky warrior than to give a fighter feats which make him more sneaky? It seems more elegant to me, because it's consistent, and it's much easier to playtest, because if you playtest feats with every possible class with every possible combination of other feats, things will get out of hand pretty quickly.

Now the Fighter does exactly build upon a generic concept in a game which relies on a non-generic design goal. It's not even the mundane vs. magic debate which makes the fighter a fail class, it's much more fundamental. The fighter fails because it's no class. Then i asked myself if cleric and wizard are actually classes; all they get are spells which, in essence, are not much different from powerful feats. But the point is that each caster gets its own spellcasting mechanic and spell list. Thus, there is an important distinction in how spells and feats are used. Wizard and cleric pass as a class.

What I really don't get is how monte cook thought it was a good idea to mix a class-based with a generic system, and why he didn't at least draw a recognizable destinction between what class features can do and what feats can do, such as class features can alter rules, feats cannot, or feats can only enhance stuff you can already do and not give you additional options, or even the opposite and feats only give additional options and nothing else.

In short, I really think that feats are bad for the game, i.e. DnD.

Oh, but they're great for the character optimization game, and I know people and know of a bunch more who think that's a better game than actually playing with the characters.

Really, the harder it is to tell if something is balanced, the more engrossing it is to figure out how to use it too well.

Oooooh good topic. Before some of the recent threads here I was thinkkng that a point-like system would be better. With three base archetypes (melee, skirmish, ranged) and maybe two or three sub types (arcane, divine, psionic). Each archetype basically allows access to point bought feats... and that's primarily how you build you personal class.

Although some of Frank's latest musings make me wonder about viability.

the generic approach, in my opinion, is made of suck. compare dnd to gurps: which one is easier to just pick up and play?

the optimization game is fun for a lot of people, but is it really totally depending on feats? i mean, a wizard's spell book is way more important to how powerful he is, than his choice of feats; same with codzilla.

So, are you saying that, for example, the scout would eventually be able to select 10 abilities from a list of 20 scout-only abilities? and that's the only list you can choose from? I.e., that is how you customize your character so that your scout doesn't look like every single other scout?

I have a severe problem with that.

The problem with feats in 3.x is that, throughout the production cycle, WotC could never make up their minds about what exactly a "feat" was supposed to do/be. If you're constantly moving the goal posts, then your concept (in this case, "feats") can't helped but to get FUBARed. Additionally, we went from ~120 feats in core to several thousands by the end of the production cycle; all the while, never overwriting older material to match the evolving game nor changing ways that characters accumulated feats (well, I guess we did get "skill tricks" tacked on there at the end .... whatever).

The fighter problem was only partly due to "feats for class features"; and this was only compounded by aforementioned feat problems. (another confounding issue being the fact that the entire skill list was written completely within the bubble of "in-combat")
Conceptually speaking, I actually don't have a problem feat-chains. In Core, the fighter could master almost every combat style available .... and that's actually kinda cool (again, conceptually speaking) -- hell, whirlwind attack + trip/disarm can be pretty bad-ass.
I don't even have much of a problem with the fighter being so item-dependent. As long as you can reasonable assume to have level-appropriate abilities, what does it matter how you come by them? Why does it matter the source of my flying ability? Whether from wings or casting the spell or magic boots, at the end of the day, flight is flight. Or what about my ability to bamph? There is no functional difference between actually casting the spell vs. having an ability on my sword that lets me literally cut a hole in the space-time continuum.

wotmaniac wrote:So, are you saying that, for example, the scout would eventually be able to select 10 abilities from a list of 20 scout-only abilities? and that's the only list you can choose from? I.e., that is how you customize your character so that your scout doesn't look like every single other scout?

I have a severe problem with that.

that's basically how wizards and codzilla do it, and you don't seem to have a severe problem with their design.

zugschef wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:So, are you saying that, for example, the scout would eventually be able to select 10 abilities from a list of 20 scout-only abilities? and that's the only list you can choose from? I.e., that is how you customize your character so that your scout doesn't look like every single other scout?

I have a severe problem with that.

that's basically how wizards and codzilla do it, and you don't seem to have a severe problem with their design.

Saywhat?

Wizards and Clerics in core 3E select:

a.) Feats, from a giant-ass list.
b.) Spells, from an even MORE giant-ass list, usually...and they change that list up every day.

If you want an equivalence there, you'd have a list of around 100+ scout abilities, of which he could pick ten every day. Is that in fact what you are suggesting? If not, stop comparing apples and oranges.

(and just by-the-by, I do have a problem with Wizard/Cleric design...it just happens to be the opposite problem that I have with fighters.)

zugschef wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:So, are you saying that, for example, the scout would eventually be able to select 10 abilities from a list of 20 scout-only abilities? and that's the only list you can choose from? I.e., that is how you customize your character so that your scout doesn't look like every single other scout?

I have a severe problem with that.

that's basically how wizards and codzilla do it, and you don't seem to have a severe problem with their design.

Really? And how did you come by that conclusion? There was nowhere in there where I discussed the design of wizards/codzilla. You must be goddamned psychic.
However, you must be encountering major levels of psychic static; because, I do, in fact, have several fundamental issues with their design as well.

Oh, and +1 to everything that PoliteNewb just said.

(btw, the #s I mentioned were just for illustrative purposes .... I have absolutely no idea how long those kinds of exclusionary lists would need to be)

Zugachef, why do you feel like a scout should be a separate class from fighter but illusionists, summoners, evokers, enchanters, diviners, are all ok as options for one wizard class?

OgreBattle wrote:Zugachef, why do you feel like a scout should be a separate class from fighter but illusionists, summoners, evokers, enchanters, diviners, are all ok as options for one wizard class?

Actually I would make the step and make the illusionist, evoker, transmuter, etc. their own class.

zugschef wrote:When I began to reflect upon 3rd Edition rules, the first thing which seemed totally arbitrary was the distinction between a class feature and a feat. This lead to the question: Why design a class based game and then decide to include a generic part?

Fighter CG
STR: 18
DEX: 12
CON: 11
INT: 9
WIS: 10
CHA: 11

Longsword

when you apply this to a character sheet, that is all people see, so that EVERY character with this information is 100% identical in how it plays, or some would think. therefore something had to be added to diversify the characters. NWPs were the answer to the problems the min-maxxers were having.

many people didnt (and still dont) know how to play D&D. wargamers were all about min-maxxing since you had only certain allotment of things so would want the best options. D&D doesnt have such predictable avenues as most wargames since it is about more than a single battle, and more than combat.

during AD&D people wanted still MORE NWPs when they got addicted to having a list, and forgot that the list wasnt even needed. the arbitrary small number of things wasnt really useful where they wanted them, in combat. Fire-building can only be used so many times before you run out of combat uses.

feats/skills in 3.x was an attempt to answer to those people who wanted more NWPs, and a larger selection of them.

also the desisngers dont know how to balance all these classes and "kits" since they cant figure out they are really just combinations of the 3 true classes in the game: fighter, cleric, mage. that is it.

a cup of cleric added to a quart of fighter and you get a paladin. players also keep asking for this weird shit and instead of going back to telling them to make it yourself since they know best what they want, the designers are working unaided in creating some specific thinig someone asks for without guidance on what they were talking about.

if in today's age i ask anyone on this forum to build me a car and just tell them "it needs lots of room"...well everyone on this forum would build uniquely different things. there is a chance that someone would get close, but no one would likely build what i am looking for because i have too little information.

to fill in the information that is missing the designer takes ideas from other people and you get bastardizes offspring ideas from multiple unconnected sources. sometimes they get what some people are ok with, but not what people are actually looking for.

when the current designers learn that they are designing things based on permutations of 3 classes, then they will be able to design classes, rather than the gimmicks.

add to that as people level up the original statblock wouldnt change, so to show improved power these feats were choices akin to the WP and NWPs to give power to show you have leveled. feats were the increase in power such as past edition had a few things at a few key levels to show the shift in power, but 3.x wants to show the change at every level so people get excited at the inaudible ~DING~ they hear in their minds.

that doesn't make sense to me... how is it any different if this dude has some feats or instead class features?

wotmaniac wrote:Really? And how did you come by that conclusion?

sorry, that was presumptuous.

zugschef wrote:When I began to reflect upon 3rd Edition rules, the first thing which seemed totally arbitrary was the distinction between a class feature and a feat. This lead to the question: Why design a class based game and then decide to include a generic part?

The purpose of feats seems pretty clear: they're meant to distinguish one character of class X from another character of class X. For instance, in AD&D all thieves were pretty much the same, but in 3E you can make a rogue who uses a guisarme-voulge and then you can say "Hey, remember that rogue who used to use a guisarme-voulge? Those were good times..."

Of course, with prestige classes and class variants and Pathfinder-style rogue tricks/alchemist discoveries, etc., you could probably do away with feats altogether and still have a good deal of differentiation. But the idea behind feats is a good one, IMO.

hogarth wrote:

zugschef wrote:When I began to reflect upon 3rd Edition rules, the first thing which seemed totally arbitrary was the distinction between a class feature and a feat. This lead to the question: Why design a class based game and then decide to include a generic part?

The purpose of feats seems pretty clear: they're meant to distinguish one character of class X from another character of class X.

yet if you compare a wizard20 to another wizard20 you won't look at the feats they chose first. you sure as hell look at their spellbook.

[edit] well, you sure can make a system which combines classes and generic design, but it's mandatory to establish a clear distinction between these "feats" which everybody can take and actual class features, otherwise you can just say "fuck classes, everything is a feat", leaving only one class which just gets a feat every level.

the first thing which is obviously just bad design, is feats with class restrictions. these should just be possible class features. then there's the feats which obviously should just be in the core mechanics, such as power attack, weapon finesse, heighten spell and combat expertise. next up just cut all +x to y feats. these suck. horribly. any ability which is supposed to scale should scale right with level. magic items and crappy feats are not good solutions to non- or bad scaling mechanics. otherwise just fuck levels and play e6. and that's what mmos are doing basically, and 4th edition proves that we don't wanna go that direction. then you make feat chains just one fuckin' feat. tome did just that, and it was a good idea.

so there's the first conclusion: every feat can be a class feature but not every class feature is a feat. that's because if you want to be a mounted character you just pick up the mounted combat feat, and the knight of the round table just gets this feat for free. yet the dude who just picked the feat, should not be able to pick up another feat which lets him summon the other eleven knights in dire need.

zugschef wrote: yet if you compare a wizard20 to another wizard20 you won't look at the feats they chose first. you sure as hell look at their spellbook.

No I would not. What are you smoking?
Example: Does the Cleric have Divine Metamagic and Persistent Magic?

Edit:
Wizard example: Item creation feats or not?

Korwin wrote:

zugschef wrote: yet if you compare a wizard20 to another wizard20 you won't look at the feats they chose first. you sure as hell look at their spellbook.

No I would not. What are you smoking?
Example: Does the Cleric have Divine Metamagic and Persistent Magic?

Edit:
Wizard example: Item creation feats or not?

i'm talking about the wizard, not the cleric. clerics know their entire spell list, which was one of the worst design mistakes ever, so whatever.

and i don't fuckin care if you have TEH METAMAGIKZ or TEH CREATIONZ, what i do care about is if you're into SoS/D, BC or Buffing and cloud spells, rays, etc., and i can deduct that from your spellbook and which spells you have prepared by default.

especially item creation is a non-ability. it's just a way to get the stuff you should get anyway, in case your GM is an asshole. thus, knowing that a particular wizard has taken all the item creation feats, tells me shit about what he's going to do in combat (of course) and shit about what he's gonna do out of combat.

metamagic feats don't tell me shit either. i can empower durations, pure damage, ability damage, and so on.

zugschef you obviously lack real high level optimization knowledge for Wizards then.

Because while every spell list will have tremendous overlap in what is in the spell book but not prepared, or in specific utility, like Teleport, feats are distinctively all used by the build.

A Wizard that does BC/debuff will have fundamentally different feats than a Wizard who does obscene piles of irresistible damage, who in turn will have different feats than the ray specialist.

But all three of them will have Dispel Magic, Stinking Cloud, Fireball, Windwall, Blink, Fly, and Haste.

Kaelik wrote:zugschef you obviously lack real high level optimization knowledge for Wizards then.

let me stop you right there:
high level optimization != mode

if you want to argue in a debate which is based upon what most players do (and most don't play high level let alone are high end optimizers), because that's understandably the core of players which you design your game for, with specific examples, you can do so. but don't expect these examples to be actually meaningful in this particular debate even if they are per se correct.

and as a sidenote: it's not debatable if the spells you actually cast, tell me more about your char than the feats you selected.

[edit] as for metamagic feats: i do see which ones you took, by looking at your prepared spells.

zugschef wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:Really? And how did you come by that conclusion?

sorry, that was presumptuous.

that's cool.

Okay, now check this out, zugs:
it looks like you just conceded to the idea of eliminating the "wizard" class as it stands, and busting it up in to a bunch of specialty classes -- and you probably won't get much resistance on that.
So, lets go with that -- and now we're a little closer to apples-to-apples (because let's be honest, in a game where we have the scout, swashbuckler, and berserker classes, the "wizard" is way to generic to be considered a single class)
Now, given that, feat selection will most definitely be the defining aspect of a character; because now there's no longer a significant difference between spellbooks/spell selection.

wotmaniac wrote:Now, given that, feat selection will most definitely be the defining aspect of a character; because now there's no longer a significant difference between spellbooks/spell selection.

Well, no, class will be the defining aspect. Feats will be a secondary thing.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:Now, given that, feat selection will most definitely be the defining aspect of a character; because now there's no longer a significant difference between spellbooks/spell selection.

Well, no, class will be the defining aspect. Feats will be a secondary thing.

not exactly what I meant .... I should have explicated the "[...] when distinguishing between, say, 2 illusionists".

(sorry -- I thought that the context implied as much)

wotmaniac wrote:So, lets go with that -- and now we're a little closer to apples-to-apples (because let's be honest, in a game where we have the scout, swashbuckler, and berserker classes, the "wizard" is way to generic to be considered a single class)

no argument here. and i'm not totally opposed to keeping feats:

well, you sure can make a system which combines classes and generic design, but it's mandatory to establish a clear distinction between these "feats" which everybody can take and actual class features, otherwise you can just say "fuck classes, everything is a feat", leaving only one class which just gets a feat every level.
the first thing which is obviously just bad design, is feats with class restrictions. these should just be possible class features. then there's the feats which obviously should just be in the core mechanics, such as power attack, weapon finesse, heighten spell and combat expertise. next up just cut all +x to y feats. these suck. horribly. any ability which is supposed to scale should scale right with level. magic items and crappy feats are not good solutions to non- or bad scaling mechanics. otherwise just fuck levels and play e6. and that's what mmos are doing basically, and 4th edition proves that we don't wanna go that direction. then you make feat chains just one fuckin' feat. tome did just that, and it was a good idea.

so there's the first conclusion: every feat can be a class feature but not every class feature is a feat. that's because if you want to be a mounted character you just pick up the mounted combat feat, and the knight of the round table just gets this feat for free. yet the dude who just picked the feat, should not be able to pick up another feat which lets him summon the other eleven knights in dire need.

Just thinking about it, the idea of some / all feats being selectable by any class seems like a bad idea. If you choose to play a Class-based game, you should agree that your character class concept has meaning. Otherwise why play a game with a class called a "Thief"? Generic feature design in a highly constrainining (ie Class-based) game seems like a contradiction.

If you play a Class-based game, there is the advantage that it can be much easier to pick up and play, as there are fewer choices for what your character can do. No choice overload on hundreds of skills and feats to choose from. Something like the Earthdawn approach to classes gets it right, where each class has individual "feats" to pick from, but no cross-pollination with other classes (unless you multiclass etc).

If you want your "rogue" to be able to do non-rogue-like things, you can play a skills-based game.

phlapjackage wrote:Just thinking about it, the idea of some / all feats being selectable by any class seems like a bad idea. If you choose to play a Class-based game, you should agree that your character class concept has meaning. Otherwise why play a game with a class called a "Thief"? Generic feature design in a highly constrainining (ie Class-based) game seems like a contradiction.

you've just answered your own question. you don't play no fuckin "thief". there ought to be no fuckin "thief" in a class based system. as well as there shouldn't be a "fighter". there should be an "assassin" or a "berserker".

back to my example: it is ok for aragorn to pick up mounted combat as a feat if he wants to, but parzival should get it for free. as a knight of the round table parzival can rely on the other eleven knights. it wouldn't make any fuckin sense for aragorn to pick up a feat which gave him the same ability.

that's how you have to seperate class features from feats: class features are stuff that other classes can't have.
-> don't make evasion a class feature. make it a feat. if you think that a particular class should have it because it's part of its schtick then it gets it for free.
-> make rage a class feature and not a feat. it defines the barbarian, berserker, whatever. other classes should not be able to get access to it.

Zugschef: That's the most arbitrary set of examples you could have provided. Here, let me show you:

-> don't make rage a class feature. make it a feat. if you think that a particular class should have it because it's part of its schtick then it gets it for free.
-> make evasion a class feature and not a feat. it defines the rogue, monk, whatever. other classes should not be able to get access to it.