View Full Version : Moar feats. Breaking balance?

Frog Dragon
2009-02-01, 08:50 AM
I've been thinking about ditching the normal feat progression and giving feats like this

And so on. Basically increasing the amount of feats gotten by almost an 1/3.

Also please note that I have a barbarian fix (self made)
No core druid but the PHBII one.
this fighter http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30692
Fax's paladin
and Fax's Monk.
I also have TWF fixes and which put improved twf and greater twf in one package.
and some minor ranger tweaks on making 2H weapon ranger viable and so on.
I also have a system which ditches XP costs on all situations.
and I have an arcane spell failure system which gives every spell in every situation a chance of failure
But, for all my houserules this is the one I'm most twitchy about

So should I increase the amount of feats gotten?

2009-02-01, 08:59 AM
This way, a pure fighter would get a feat every single level...
It might be balanced, as long as you adjust the monsters (or use those of a higher CR)

2009-02-01, 09:00 AM
Interesting homebrews here.

About feats.... Well, I don't think it's so very unbalancing, and certainly allows broader and thus more interesting customization of characters.

Possibly, you can order that some feats (let's say on 5th, 9th,11th and so on) may only be ones that give some numerical bonuses, not new abilities.

2009-02-01, 09:19 AM
So should I increase the amount of feats gotten?

I like the blend of houserules already, seems to fix a lot of whats broken with the game... so this comes down to basically power output, more feats means more power (although some feats will have to shuffle because of prerequisites often coinciding with the normal levels of feat hand outs)...
But overall, its like gestalt, if everyones got it, its balanced in comparison, your just going to have more powerful character than a standard game... If you want that, then yeah, keep it, it means you can throw more and higher CR encounters at your group before they start to die... otherwise, I don't see why its really needed and you might as well leave it be.

2009-02-01, 09:30 AM
I've played like this for a while. I feel characters get too few feats leaving many of the more interesting, but ultimately weaker feats unavailable as you're picking the obligatories like Shock Trooper, Power Attack, Quicken Spell, Natural Spell, Craft Wondrous Items, etc.

With some extra feats, PrC qualification becomes easier (so that a Dervish can pick feats other than just the prerequisites), characters get to dabble in more things (presently, a Fighter that's both, a competent archer and a competent melee fighter is a practical impossibility due to the huge amount of feats involved in both) and characters without bonus feats can finish multiple chains. In short, I feel it's definitely a game-enhancing house rule.

Frog Dragon
2009-02-01, 09:30 AM
I was just thinking about the feat starvedness of many classes and whether this would work. The thing is it cheapens bonus feats though with that fighter fix it's not much of an issue.

E: Eldariel Ninja'ed me there and he also convinced me. I'm adding this to my House Rules D&D.odt

2009-02-01, 11:32 AM
Given that most (non-tactical) feats are the functional equivalent of a low level spell there really shouldn't be any problem.

Your other modifications and fixes seem like common sense as well.

2009-02-01, 12:07 PM
It should be noted he only adds 3 feats by level 20, so it isn't that big a deal.

2009-02-01, 12:38 PM
I've given players extra feats before as a racial bonus. Feats at 5 and 11 to show how you are a paragon of your species.

Shifters can take [Shifter] feats
Warforged can take [Warforged] feats
Standard races can take Dragonmarks

Many racial feats are hardly game breaking and it allows players to develop another side to their character.

2009-02-01, 12:50 PM
I like racial bonus feats in addition to this. In fact, I do it as follows:

Level 1: Regional feat, racial feat, general feat (I've long been debating if I want to add a combat style feat here; on one hand, it'd make a ton of sense for martial types, but not so much for non-casters - on the other, making it unbalanced wouldn't work out as that'd mean people would just take the first level in a martial class and benefit of the feat and multiclass away)
Level 2: General feat
Level 4: General feat
Level 5: Racial feat
Level 6: General feat
Level 8: General feat
Level 10: General feat, racial feat
Level 12: General feat
Level 14: General feat
Level 15: Racial feat
Level 16: General feat
Level 18: General feat
Level 20: General feat, racial feat

This makes for a nice 1-10-20 polarity for the "big levels" and a new ability almost every level, giving you a feel of constant advancement.

Baron Corm
2009-02-01, 01:13 PM
Letting the dervish get some non-prerequisite feats is definitely a good thing, however keep in mind that some prestige classes don't have skill or BAB prerequisites, so PCs will be getting into them earlier. Not too big a deal, since you're not granting any extra feats from 1-5, but it's something to watch out for.

I don't think that giving arcane spellcasters a chance to either be useless or be uber is a fix at all, but I don't want to derail the thread with that one :smallwink:

2009-02-01, 01:30 PM
I, too, have played games with the feat at every odd level houserule.

It doesn't imbalance things, and helps customization and differentiation of characters. I like it.

2009-02-01, 01:43 PM
I forgot to mention a great benefit of having racial feats: You can handle things such as Bloodlines and Level Adjustment by just using the racial feats rather than crappy, convoluted "inexistent class levels you have to take"-levels. I only wish someone would figure such a simple way to deal with Racial HD too. It's the one thing I still haven't figured out in 3.X; otherwise I'm content with the system with all manners of houserules applied.

2009-02-01, 10:09 PM
We are running a game that uses 1-3-5-7 as well. It's not breaking at all, especially if you send out a few more boys with each wave to try to kill your party.
Unfortunately, it sort of slows down the time at which you could get feats normally. For example, Improved Natural Attack is a must for Monks who want to deal damage because it's another boost in your size modifier. With a 1-3-6 progression, a Monk can grab it at level 6 when is BAB is 4. However, a 1-3-5 progression means that he can't pick it up until level 7 as he lacks to required BAB.
It's not as breaking as you may think; it just gives different options at a lower level. A Charger Barbarian could have PA and Shock Trooper one level earlier and have Leap Attack two levels earlier and Fighters get loads and loads of feats that they can branch out a little. A Fighter could have a Two-Hander and also have feats buffing his S&B if it was necessary in a Fight; 20 feats goes a long, long way.

Best of luck

2009-02-01, 10:40 PM
Grats, you just recreated the feat progression of Pathfinder: the free D&D clone/remake from Paizo. Which many people say is more balanced than traditional D&D.

2009-02-02, 12:16 AM
Grats, you just recreated the feat progression of Pathfinder: the free D&D clone/remake from Paizo. Which many people say is more balanced than traditional D&D.
Others disagree.

But I do think standard D&D is feat-starved in general. Many character concepts require five or six feats in order to be playable, meaning they're only available at relatively high levels (or through heavy planning of bonus feats). Increasing the number of feats is an obvious move. I'd also increase the rate of ability point acquisition at the same time (perhaps alternating with feats at every level).