A feat per level

[RobbyPants]

So, I'm feeling like tinkering with 3.x again, and I was looking at the idea of more frequent feats floated around here lately. I agree that most of the feats printed are weak enough that getting one a level wouldn't wreck too much. The basic rule I was thinking about was You get one feat per PC class level. This would allow me to use monsters as-is, without having to quick add a bunch of feats ad hoc.

That being said, I have a few questions:

• What would be the best way to handle prereqs? Easy mode is to leave them as-is, but some could probably be lowered for this. Perhaps get rid of other feats as prereqs?
• Should the tactical feats (the ones you normally get at 6th level that grant three maneuvers) be left as-is, or should they be broken up into their separate maneuvers, with no/fewer prereqs?
• A lot of metamagic feats are pretty good, already. Is it better to accept casters getting solid benefits from this rule, or should something be done about any of the feats that are notably better than the other published feats?
• Any other obvious concerns I missed?

Some of the caster supremacy stuff might not be such an issue, because I was also thinking about reworking a lot of the classes as part of this fix. Still, those specifics are a different topic.

[JonSetanta]

You missed something

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56602

[Kaelik]

Most feats are fine. You probably don't need to break multiple ones apart, because they mostly suck.

Caster supremacy already isn't an issue, because you weren't going to use Fighters anyways, and most metamagic feats are garbage without reductions, and the good ones are still only passably good.

I'm sure that Wizards will find more better feats to take than Fighters, and that Clerics will find even more better ones than them because Clerics, but that doesn't mean anything unless someone runs out of feats to take, which won't happen no matter what they are using until level 10.

Pretty much all feats should have no pre-req at all, and the ones that do have pre-reqs should have it based on level.

You missed something

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56602

No one misses your garbage, we just wish we did. Your intention to eventually maybe write up a flawed system of many small feats that get progressively better as you level is worthless to someone who doesn't want to write anything.

[RobbyPants]

You missed something

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56602

I saw it, but you seemed to be taking the approach of beefing up the feats. I've done various hot-fixes and house rules over the years that did that. This time, I wanted to see what type of results I could get from a minimalist approach without actually rewriting feats.

Most feats are fine. You probably don't need to break multiple ones apart, because they mostly suck.

True. I mean, people only take Shock Trooper for Heedless Charge, anyway. If they get those two weird bull rush maneuvers, it's not going to break much. I can't think of a single tactical feat off hand that gives more than one good maneuver, anyway.

Pretty much all feats should have no pre-req at all, and the ones that do have pre-reqs should have it based on level.

Can you think of any feats off the top of your head that you think should have a minimum level, if we're going this route?

I'm sure TWF in it's entirety should be rethought, but given chains like TWF, Impromved TWF, and Greater TWF: should those still be chained? I'm of a mind to break my rule I just mentioned to Sigma and just mash the three of them into one feat and call it a day. The fact that you had to buy your iterative attacks separately always pissed me off.

[Kaelik]

Vactic Gaze? I can't remember exactly, but their's some feat that grants you a gaze attack.

But yeah, the vast majority of feats should have none, I'm just saying if you have any at all, they should only be level.

[codeGlaze]

Just allow the iterative feats to scale with level?

Maybe allow non-metamagic feats to be chosen every level... But metamagic can only be selected every even level?

Beyond that, just ignore pre read... That solves, the problem of shitty feats being something most people look,at, ever.

[Username17]

I can't think of a single tactical feat off hand that gives more than one good maneuver, anyway.

Several components of Elusive Target are pretty sweet.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

Just allow the iterative feats to scale with level?

Yeah, I'd probably do the apply the Tome fix to iterative attacks (each one is only -5 from your BAB, not a cumulative -5 penalty), and just have hot-fix TWF to give one extra attack per attack allowed by BAB, with the same attack bonus.

Several components of Elusive Target are pretty sweet.

I actually had to bust out my Complete Warrior since I didn't remember anything other than Negate Power Attack. Two things:

• Do you think each maneuver should be a feat?
• The first two maneuvers specifically only work if you are designating an opponent to be affected by your Dodge feat. Now, even if Dodge is removed as a prereq for Elusive Target (or the individual maneuvers), they'd still be useless without it (unless the feat is further modified). I'm thinking if it's left as-is, you have to blow a feat on shitty Dodge to even be able to use 2/3 of Elusive Target, which makes me think it might be fine to grant all three maneuvers for one feat.

[nockermensch]

I can't think of a single tactical feat off hand that gives more than one good maneuver, anyway.

Several components of Elusive Target are pretty sweet.

-Username17

If feat pre-requisites are on, this should be alright, since Dodge and Mobility are two extra sad feats.

[RobbyPants]

The current idea is no prereqs on most feats, and level-only on the few with prereqs.

[deaddmwalking]

For a game going up to mid-levels, you'll be absolutely fine to allow one feat per level (even metamagic feats). Your party will have a few new tricks but they won't really be more powerful. Instead of spamming on feat (Power Attack) now they choose between two.

You can and should go further - while most feats can stand alone, you could fold several chains into a single feat. Two-Weapon Fighting is the most obvious choice. One feat allowing you to make as many attacks with your off-hand as with your primary hand is certainly sufficient.

[JonSetanta]

I saw it, but you seemed to be taking the approach of beefing up the feats. I've done various hot-fixes and house rules over the years that did that. This time, I wanted to see what type of results I could get from a minimalist approach without actually rewriting feats.

I see. Well good luck to you

[K]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a spell, would I spend a slot to cast it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

[Rawbeard]

I think it's better to ask "would I pick it as an at-will cantrip". even then a lot will fail.

[AndreiChekov]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a feat, would I ever choose it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

fixed

[JonSetanta]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a spell, would I spend a slot to cast it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

... hmmm.

But feats are linear and spells are exponential. How can you compare the two? Making feats scale was the foundation of much of Tome. You were co-writer. You know this better than anyone.

[K]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a feat, would I ever choose it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

fixed

No, you didn't. Let me explain how you are very wrong.

Some feats are good. They are so good that they could be good spells. For example, the feat Ascetic Mage lets a Sorcerer/Monk add Cha to AC, which is could be as high as 5 to 8 points of all-day, stack-with-almost-everything AC, enough all-day, stack-with-almost-everything AC that a single spell that did the same thing would be on most people's spell lists.

Some feats are like the bad spells you'd never cast like Guidance. For example, Thrall to Demons is a feat that also gives a tiny bonus once a day and you'd be a damned fool to spend one of a mere handful of feats on it.

Most feats are not even as good as the worst spells. Toughness is just shit at any level you'd take it.

The metric of power in DnD is the spell. It's a highly varied set of hundreds of power benchmarks that takes up over half the PHB.

[K]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a spell, would I spend a slot to cast it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

... hmmm.

But feats are linear and spells are exponential. How can you compare the two? Making feats scale was the foundation of much of Tome. You were co-writer. You know this better than anyone.

Feats are wildly variable in power level, not linear.

[Kaelik]

And if something were a first level spell that gave +1 to attack that stacked with everything with a duration of all the time, you would totally cast that.

But you would also never take that feat. Which seems to be a problem with this system.

[JonSetanta]

What if Power Attack was like a melee version of Fireball/Lightning Bolt?

X times per day (3?) you could deal a massive amount of damage.

That kind of comparison to spells?

[OgreBattle]

Do you plan on collapsing weaker feats into one another?

I could see Dodge+Mobility+Spring Attack as a three part feat, and Dodge changed to +1AC and no special designation step needed.

The more changes you make to feats though the more tempting it is to just flip the table and write your own set. You said you've done that before, was that posted on TGD?

[JonSetanta]

Do you plan on collapsing weaker feats into one another?

I could see Dodge+Mobility+Spring Attack as a three part feat, and Dodge changed to +1AC and no special designation step needed.

The more changes you make to feats though the more tempting it is to just flip the table and write your own set. You said you've done that before, was that posted on TGD?

I'd rather boost Dodge to like a +2 AC, change Mobility to something better, and leave Spring Attack alone. All separate feats.

[RobbyPants]

Do you plan on collapsing weaker feats into one another?

I could see Dodge+Mobility+Spring Attack as a three part feat, and Dodge changed to +1AC and no special designation step needed.

The more changes you make to feats though the more tempting it is to just flip the table and write your own set. You said you've done that before, was that posted on TGD?

That's an option, but like you said, it basically ends up being a rewrite once you start. But yeah, some are still bad enough that you wouldn't take them, even with roughly triple the slots available.

I posted roughly half my work on Minmaxboards about four or five years ago. The feats are all there in about two or three threads. They didn't scale as much as RoW [combat] feats, but I rewrote a lot of core feats.

Edit: Here are links to a lot of them if you want to look at them, but I never fully put every thing on MMB.

Skill feats
Combat rules and modified feats

[JonSetanta]

Skill feats
Combat rules and modified feats

Jackpot! This is some nice work.

[AndreiChekov]

The way to determine if a feat is good is to ask this question: "if this was a feat, would I ever choose it?"

The answer is usually "no", and that's because most feats suck.

fixed

No, you didn't. Let me explain how you are very wrong.

Some feats are good. They are so good that they could be good spells. For example, the feat Ascetic Mage lets a Sorcerer/Monk add Cha to AC, which is could be as high as 5 to 8 points of all-day, stack-with-almost-everything AC, enough all-day, stack-with-almost-everything AC that a single spell that did the same thing would be on most people's spell lists.

Some feats are like the bad spells you'd never cast like Guidance. For example, Thrall to Demons is a feat that also gives a tiny bonus once a day and you'd be a damned fool to spend one of a mere handful of feats on it.

Most feats are not even as good as the worst spells. Toughness is just shit at any level you'd take it.

The metric of power in DnD is the spell. It's a highly varied set of hundreds of power benchmarks that takes up over half the PHB.

Which means that ascetic mage is a feat you would pick, putting it on the worth it list. That really doesn't change anything.