Feats? Which could be done away with? Only for fighters?

[Ozreth]

Has anybody done this? Would other classes hold up to the fighters without feats?

I'm not talking on a super complex, uber game balancing, power building level. I'm talking like a 2e level of balance. If the change would be too drastic, what would you suggest adding to the other classes to make up for the absence of feats?

Secondly, if you wanted to take away the "build" aspect of feats, which would you take out of the core book to enable cool bonuses for characters but to take away the chance that they could possibly have a "bad build" or have to plan things levels in advance?

[Eldest]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking which feats could be gotten rid of? Which feats could be fighter only? Something else?

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, could you rephrase your entire post, please?

[TroubleBrewing]

I think what's being proposed is totally eliminating feats for every class except Fighters.

It's an interesting thing to think about, but I don't think it does anything to the power level of the game. All it really does is make the game less interesting and customizable.

And any rule which eliminates fun in favor of balance belongs in 4e.

[Ozreth]

Sorry. So this is really two questions:

The first question being:

If you were to do away with a lot of the feats in the core game, which would they be? The goal is to take away the fact that Monte built the feats system to punish players who don't master it and reward those who do. I want a small set of feats that are beneficial and flavorful, but dont equate to "take this feat or lose" or result in players planning out feats levels in advance. In other words, no "builds."

Now the second question has nothing to do with the first. Totally different situations:

What if you were to leave feats as they were (although only allowing core) but only allow fighters to have feats. How major of a problem would this cause? And if it would be too drastic could the other classes make up for it in some subtle way?


I think what's being proposed is totally eliminating feats for every class except Fighters.

It's an interesting thing to think about, but I don't think it does anything to the power level of the game. All it really does is make the game less interesting and customizable.

And any rule which eliminates fun in favor of balance belongs in 4e.

Well, I am also a player of 2e AD&D and Castles & Crusades. I am of the strong opinion that simplicity makes a game more interesting if your group isn't the type to rely on mechanics and a multitude of options to bring creativity to the table. And while I also like a lot of 3e, I tend to flavor it with this in mind. For instance, I use the level based skill system in Unearthed Arcana to do away with skill points, I use slow level advancement, and often ignore AOO and have simplified flanking to lessen the importance of a grid and exact positioning.

[Steward]

Most caster classes outstrip the Fighter in terms of balance without even touching feats, so taking them away would really only hurt other non-caster characters. (Metamagic abuse is popular but it's not necessary to make a powerful wizard, cleric, or druid, for example). Fighters I think are the only ones whose class features are actually made up almost entirely of feats, right?


What if you were to leave feats as they were (although only allowing core) but only allow fighters to have feats. How major of a problem would this cause? And if it would be too drastic could the other classes make up for it in some subtle way?

Most core feats are terrible, especially since most classes only get a handful of them over the course of the entire game. A +2 to Gather Information is okay, but it's not worth an entire feat. Getting rid of every single feat for casters wouldn't affect them that much, and since most of them are pretty bad it would hinder non-casters but not by enough (since, again, most of the feats aren't good enough to really make a non-caster significantly more powerful).

[Gavinfoxx]

... Okay, PHB, DMG, MM1...

You are missing the entire point. Feats and the lack thereof aren't where the problem with core D&D lies. The problem is agency and spells, and that spells and things like shapeshifting into a dire bat allow you to have more control and influence over the world than swinging a weapon do.

Besides, in Core, by level 12, the fighter has already gotten all of the feats that could possibly be relevant to them.

If you want a game where every feat is balanced to be equal with every other feat that feels like D&D, play Legend.

Really, go download Legend RIGHT NOW and read it, if you haven't already. Read it cover to cover... http://www.ruleofcool.com/

Also, another more balanced version of D&D would be to use, say, mutants and masterminds 3rd edition to make D&D characters. See:

http://greywulf.net/2011/06/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/

[Hirax]

Removing feats wouldn't do anything to make the game more or less balanced, though it would make character building much more boring.

[Ozreth]

Removing feats wouldn't do anything to make the game more or less balanced, though it would make character building much more boring.

Again, I simply come from a different mindstate of gaming. In our group "building the character" is done narratively, not mechanically, no matter what system we are using. And trust me, compared to a lot of editions 3e still has a LOT of mechanics to offer even without feats.

I'm not trying to argue styles and editions here, just wondering about a tweak to 3e.

[gkathellar]

If you were to do away with a lot of the feats in the core game, which would they be? The goal is to take away the fact that Monte built the feats system to punish players who don't master it and reward those who do. I want a small set of feats that are beneficial and flavorful, but dont equate to "take this feat or lose" or result in players planning out feats levels in advance. In other words, no "builds."

In Core alone, just to start with:

Flat-out remove: Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Combat Casting, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Eschew Materials, Great Fortitude, Investigator, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Run, Self-Sufficiency, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Toughness, Whirlwind Attack.

Merge the following: all the Armor Proficiency feats together, all the Weapon proficiency feats together, Endurance with Diehard, Deflect Arrows with Snatch Arrows, Point-Blank Shot with Far Shot and Precise Shot, Cleave with Great Cleave, the entire TWF tree including TWD (with extra off-hand attacks gained at appropriate +6 and +11 BAB thresholds), Forge Ring with Craft Woundrous Item.

Finally, universalize the following, so that everybody basically has them: Combat Expertise (have it replace Fighting Defensively and Total Defense), Improved Unarmed Strike, Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery (by making them trained-only functions of the Ride skill), Power Attack, Rapid Reload, Shield Proficiency, Track (make it a trained-only Survival feature), Weapon Finesse.

And that's just in core.


What if you were to leave feats as they were (although only allowing core) but only allow fighters to have feats. How major of a problem would this cause? And if it would be too drastic could the other classes make up for it in some subtle way?

What happens when you dip Fighter 1?

EDIT: More comprehensively, there are two ways to approach this. The first is a removal of the feats at levels 1, 3, 6, etc. but allowing bonus feats to remain. The second would only be allowing characters to gain feats on fighter levels. Both are bad ideas in slightly different ways, but the parallel they share is that many assumptions of the game are built around the existence of feats: Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, for instance, are staples of certain classes and very important to their effective use. Game balance is already flimsy — this throws it wildly off without ever making clear the direction of the toss.

[Hirax]

Again, I simply come from a different mindstate of gaming. In our group "building the character" is done narratively, not mechanically, no matter what system we are using. And trust me, compared to a lot of editions 3e still has a LOT of mechanics to offer even without feats.

I'm not trying to argue styles and editions here, just wondering about a tweak to 3e.

You've created a false dichotomy, removing feats would have zero effect on narrative.

[Ozreth]

You've created a false dichotomy, removing feats would have zero effect on narrative.

I don't think the simplification, or even removal, of feats will have an effect on narrative. However, I KNOW that for MY GROUP it will alleviate some of the strong gamist implications of the system and return them to a more comfortable, familiar style of play. That is, if I can get it to work decently.

I promise I'm not trying to threaten your style of play, or anyone else's. I support anybodies approach to d&d as long as they are having fun with it. The bottom line is that people here like to tweak the game, for best or for worse, and they do it far better than myself. So when I've got some ideas brewing but don't know how to follow through on them, this is one of the places I stop for help.


In Core alone, just to start with:

Flat-out remove: Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Combat Casting, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Eschew Materials, Great Fortitude, Investigator, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Run, Self-Sufficiency, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Toughness, Whirlwind Attack.

Merge the following: all the Armor Proficiency feats together, all the Weapon proficiency feats together, Endurance with Diehard, Deflect Arrows with Snatch Arrows, Point-Blank Shot with Far Shot and Precise Shot, Cleave with Great Cleave, the entire TWF tree including TWD (with extra off-hand attacks gained at appropriate +6 and +11 BAB thresholds), Forge Ring with Craft Woundrous Item.

Finally, universalize the following, so that everybody basically has them: Combat Expertise (have it replace Fighting Defensively and Total Defense), Improved Unarmed Strike, Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery (by making them trained-only functions of the Ride skill), Power Attack, Rapid Reload, Shield Proficiency, Track (make it a trained-only Survival feature), Weapon Finesse.

And that's just in core.



What happens when you dip Fighter 1?

EDIT: More comprehensively, there are two ways to approach this. The first is a removal of the feats at levels 1, 3, 6, etc. but allowing bonus feats to remain. The second would only be allowing characters to gain feats on fighter levels. Both are bad ideas in slightly different ways, but the parallel they share is that many assumptions of the game are built around the existence of feats: Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, for instance, are staples of certain classes and very important to their effective use. Game balance is already flimsy — this throws it wildly off without ever making clear the direction of the toss.

Wow. This is pretty thorough. I'm going to have to pop open the book and start considering all of this, it sounds great like what I'm looking for though. As far as dipping fighter levels, I hadn't thought of that. The second suggestion sounds better to me than the first one though.

[Hirax]

I don't think the simplification, or even removal, of feats will have an effect on narrative. However, I KNOW that for MY GROUP it will alleviate some of the strong gamist implications of the system and return them to a more comfortable, familiar style of play. That is, if I can get it to work decently.

I promise I'm not trying to threaten your style of play, or anyone else's. I support anybodies approach to d&d as long as they are having fun with it. The bottom line is that people here like to tweak the game, for best or for worse, and they do it far better than myself. So when I've got some ideas brewing but don't know how to follow through on them, this is one of the places I stop for help.

What is this? Why are you even assuming that anyone here plays the game differently? You read too much into my original post. :smallsigh:

[gkathellar]

Wow. This is pretty thorough. I'm going to have to pop open the book and start considering all of this, it sounds great like what I'm looking for though.

Bear in mind that it leaves something like 10-15 feats, total, you'd probably want to expand it past core. And you'd definitely want to figure out something for the Weapon Focus line — they don't really deserve to be more than one feat, but they probably can't all come in at once.


The second suggestion sounds better to me than the first one though.

Both of them are equally bad in practice. It's a bad idea to take such a fundamental system and isolate it so completely, for reasons of balance and versimilitude. The idea that a Barbarian can't take Improved Bull Rush or that a Rogue can't take TWF without dipping fighter is bizarre and silly, and it gets even worse when you get druids dipping fighter at 6th level for Natural Spell. And it's an idea which will require you to modify the stats of every monster in the books since none of them should be getting feats either.

[Coidzor]

Has anybody done this? Would other classes hold up to the fighters without feats?

You've been on these boards long enough to know that high level magic defeats whatever piddly collection of feats that the fighter could string together.

[Mystify]

... Okay, PHB, DMG, MM1...

You are missing the entire point. Feats and the lack thereof aren't where the problem with core D&D lies. The problem is agency and spells, and that spells and things like shapeshifting into a dire bat allow you to have more control and influence over the world than swinging a weapon do.

Besides, in Core, by level 12, the fighter has already gotten all of the feats that could possibly be relevant to them.

If you want a game where every feat is balanced to be equal with every other feat that feels like D&D, play Legend.

Really, go download Legend RIGHT NOW and read it, if you haven't already. Read it cover to cover... http://www.ruleofcool.com/

Also, another more balanced version of D&D would be to use, say, mutants and masterminds 3rd edition to make D&D characters. See:

http://greywulf.net/2011/06/mutants-and-dragons-third-edition/
I have to second this. Legend did a great job with creating interesting and useful options while maintaining balance.

[TroubleBrewing]

You've been on these boards long enough to know that high level magic defeats whatever piddly collection of feats that the fighter could string together.

This was my first thought.

Different playstyles aside, when your Wizard is, bare minimum, using Power Word: Kill (Because how can you deny such a kick-ass name?), which instantly slays something, and your Fighter is patting himself on the back for having "mastered" archery... You've gotta see a problem there.

Just because the Wizard is inconvenienced by having to actually carry a spell component pouch and can't Quicken, Enlarge, Maximize, Widen, Heighten, or Still Spell the already world-shattering bitch-slaps he's delivering to the laws of physics and reality doesn't mean that the Fighter who gets to stay alive in negative hitpoints is coming out any closer to the Wizard in terms of power.

I realize that making the two exactly equal isn't a priority, but this doesn't even begin to narrow the gap. I think all you'd get out of this rule-change is bored players with cookie-cutter characters. Unless you multiclass, every Wizard is the same, barring race and spell selection. Every Rogue is exactly the same, with the sole exception of race.

[Mystify]

This was my first thought.

Different playstyles aside, when your Wizard is, bare minimum, using Power Word: Kill (Because how can you deny such a kick-ass name?), which instantly slays something, and your Fighter is patting himself on the back for having "mastered" archery... You've gotta see a problem there.

Just because the Wizard is inconvenienced by having to actually carry a spell component pouch and can't Quicken, Enlarge, Maximize, Widen, Heighten, or Still Spell the already world-shattering bitch-slaps he's delivering to the laws of physics and reality doesn't mean that the Fighter who gets to stay alive in negative hitpoints is coming out any closer to the Wizard in terms of power.

I realize that making the two exactly equal isn't a priority, but this doesn't even begin to narrow the gap. I think all you'd get out of this rule-change is bored players with cookie-cutter characters. Unless you multiclass, every Wizard is the same, barring race and spell selection. Every Rogue is exactly the same, with the sole exception of race.
And you do a lot of harm to many of the non-casters in the progress. For instance, you just took away the rouge's two weapon fighting. That is a serious blow. Oh, an the ranger? His archery is now worthless. Meanwhile, the druid is still a bear riding a bear summoning bears, the cleric is still buffing himself to the higher tiers of martial prowess, and spellcasters are still twisting reality. This just makes the balance of the game worse.

[Steward]

I think if you remove feats, you should consider giving non-casting classes some sort of benefit in return. Feats (and magic items) are their main source of customizability. They don't get spells, maneuvers, or powers. They are only a handful of weapons each one can use. It's not really about power or optimization; it's about being able to do something other than roll the same dice over and over again while the wizard is flipping through his rolodex trying decide between Prismatic Spray, Eyebite,

One thing I recommend is giving classes like the Fighter access to all of their feats. Why should a Fighter need special training to 'hit someone really hard with a sword'? Why should a Monk -- allegedly a trained martial artist only be able to punch someone really freaking hard once a day? You could make feats like this actual class features instead, so that the non-casters have something to do. The roleplaying aspect could be written as them slowly tapping into their full potential or learning advanced techniques through years of experience.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, I am also a player of 2e AD&D and Castles & Crusades. I am of the strong opinion that simplicity makes a game more interesting if your group isn't the type to rely on mechanics and a multitude of options to bring creativity to the table. And while I also like a lot of 3e, I tend to flavor it with this in mind. For instance, I use the level based skill system in Unearthed Arcana to do away with skill points, I use slow level advancement, and often ignore AOO and have simplified flanking to lessen the importance of a grid and exact positioning.

Feats are just 2E proficiency/skill points with more options.
Remember, you can't climb well without the proficiency point. You can't specialize without the point (fighters only perk was specializing to grandmaster). In fact, you need those points to be proficient back then (or do you houserule away those?).
You can't even TWF without those points in 2E (rogue, rangers, and Fighters can).

Wait, in 2E you removed AoO (from retreating from melee, remember it denied Dex/shield bonuses)?

And 2E had builds: they were Fighter/mage, Cleric/Ranger (full bab, good casting though limited to blunt weapons), Cleric/Mage/Thief, Illusionist/Thief, Druid/Fighter (for Druid with full bab), etc.
And Dual class? That required a Build (you need X stat for X levels before you can take X class with X stat)

2E's main issue was melee/ranged randomness (can't target). Most people houseruled that bug, but that was a big distraction/dislike for me.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think the simplification, or even removal, of feats will have an effect on narrative.

...And if the alleged archery-master Ranger can't hit things, and deals scratch-damage when he does? :smalltongue: I hear Legend simplified things a bit.

[Talakeal]

Meanwhile, the druid is still a bear riding a bear summoning bears,

To be fair, the druid is actually only a guy riding a bear summoning bears who can then turn into a bear later. No natural spell after all.

[Mystify]

To be fair, the druid is actually only a guy riding a bear summoning bears who can then turn into a bear later. No natural spell after all.

Ok,a guy who summoned bears, then turned into a bear riding a bear.

[Dsurion]

In Core alone, just to start with:

Flat-out remove: Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Combat Casting, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Eschew Materials, Great Fortitude, Investigator, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Run, Self-Sufficiency, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Toughness, Whirlwind Attack.

Merge the following: all the Armor Proficiency feats together, all the Weapon proficiency feats together, Endurance with Diehard, Deflect Arrows with Snatch Arrows, Point-Blank Shot with Far Shot and Precise Shot, Cleave with Great Cleave, the entire TWF tree including TWD (with extra off-hand attacks gained at appropriate +6 and +11 BAB thresholds), Forge Ring with Craft Woundrous Item.

Finally, universalize the following, so that everybody basically has them: Combat Expertise (have it replace Fighting Defensively and Total Defense), Improved Unarmed Strike, Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery (by making them trained-only functions of the Ride skill), Power Attack, Rapid Reload, Shield Proficiency, Track (make it a trained-only Survival feature), Weapon Finesse.All of this sounds suspiciously like how I've been running my game for years...

[ericgrau]

Question 1: A lot of feats are situational so there actually isn't a blanket solution to this without knowing the campaign. Skills and other environmental challenges tend to be underused though and most aren't necessary to boost anyway so most gaming groups could eliminate those to save new players some headaches. Proficiency feats could probably be taken out too as it takes a highly specific situation for the feat to be better than getting it from a class. Toughness is out for the same reason (very low level specific).

Below is a core feat list you can use. You'll need to remove or upgrade more feats as the game power level increases which varies by gaming group, so I can't really help you on specifics like that. I could likewise rank the remaining feats, provide strategies for when to use or not use what, or do other such things but I won't for the same reason.


General Feats
Augment Summoning
Blind-Fight
Combat Casting
Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, Improved Trip, Whirlwind Attack
Combat Reflexes
Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack
Exotic Weapon Proficiency
Extra Turning
Great Fortitude
Improved Counterspell
Improved Critical
Improved Familiar
Improved Initiative
Improved Turning
Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Snatch Arrows, Stunning Fist
Iron Will
Leadership
Lightning Reflexes
Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample
Natural Spell
Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Shot On The Run
Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder
Quick Draw
Rapid Reload
Improved Shield Bash
Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus
Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration
Track
Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization

Item Creation Feats
Brew Potion
Craft Magic Arms And Armor
Craft Rod
Craft Staff
Craft Wand
Craft Wondrous Item
Forge Ring
Scribe Scroll

Metamagic Feats
Empower Spell
Enlarge Spell
Extend Spell
Heighten Spell
Maximize Spell
Quicken Spell
Silent Spell
Still Spell
Widen Spell

Question 2: What do you do to avoid fighter dips? This seems more like a balancing headache than anything and I wouldn't bother

[Manateee]

To go a different way, flat-out remove Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Shot on the Run, Weapon Finesse, Spring Attack, Metamagic feats, item creation feats, the TWF line, Improved Counterspell, Natural Spell, Track, the non-Numeric benefits of the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats and make them all default character options.

Axe the Leadership feat. Make command a story-based feature.

Turn Deflect Arrows and Stunning Fist into Monk class abilities.
Turn Eschew Materials into a Sorcerer class ability.
Turn Great Cleave and Diehard into Fighter and Barbarian abilities.
Turn Whirlwind Attack into a Barbarian combat option.
Turn the Mounted Combat line into Fighter and Paladin combat options.
Turn Blindfight, Quickdraw and Rapid Reload into Fighter abilities.

That would leave character actions more player-driven and less build-dependent (eg. the Ranger could try to tackle the Evil Warlord without it being suicide - even if the Ranger hasn't focused his entire progression on tackling stuff). But it would seriously downplay characterbuilding. And if balance is a concern, it definitely wouldn't help.

[FMArthur]

I just want to interject this simple bit of critical information: every single nonmagical base class outside of the Tome of Battle is powered more by its feats than its own class features.

[gkathellar]

All of this sounds suspiciously like how I've been running my game for years...

Then you are a wise man. Personally, I'd prefer one of the numerous excellent feat fixes over at Homebrew, but it's so rare to find a group with a Homebrew whitelist.


I just want to interject this simple bit of critical information: every single nonmagical base class outside of the Tome of Battle is powered more by its feats than its own class features.

Whirling Pouncebarian?

[FMArthur]

You telling me your mere weapon damage is supposed to carry you through your whole career? That barbarian is not inflicting incredible damage except at early levels, and isn't doing anything else. You use your class as a base for choosing your feats off of and those feats actually turn you into something deadly. Otherwise you're still doing the same thing at every stage of your career that you were doing at level 1, and you get any better at it very slowly.

[SowZ]

I don't think the simplification, or even removal, of feats will have an effect on narrative. However, I KNOW that for MY GROUP it will alleviate some of the strong gamist implications of the system and return them to a more comfortable, familiar style of play. That is, if I can get it to work decently.

Your gaming style is perfectly valid, but doesn't mesh well with D&D, it sounds like. You can try and alter D&D massively, messing up balance and the basic assumptions the game was built around along the way, and you may end up with a game that fits your style better but it will still feel clunky. Compared to games that focus on the style you are going for, I think D&D 3e will always be unsatisfying to you. I don't see much of a reason for you to play D&D is what I am saying. If you aren't a fan of the way D&D is designed and built with 'gamism' in mind, there are plenty of other systems. I wonder why you want to keep with 3e so bad?

It's like buying Champions when no one in your group wants to play a super hero game. Sure, you could use the Champions rules to play a non-super hero game. But why even bother trying? If you want a game without the gamism and complex 'builds' why not go with the storyteller system? The high fantasy sword and sorcery aspect of D&D can be easily replicated with Scion or Exalted.

Oh, and with a game where there are levels with specific class features gained and various levels and such, I don't think you will ever entirely get rid of the idea of builds. A more organic leveling system where you spend XP instead of gaining levels is more likely to not have builds.