Another way to handle feats?

[Phosphate]

I always wondered why did all classes get the same number of feats at the same levels. Here's an alternative I came up with recently:

Every level, you gain valor points based on the class in which you level. Classes should have different rates at which valor points are gained, as such:

Wizard: 1/2 (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1 etc)
Duskblade: 2/3 (1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0 etc)
Barbarian: 1 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 etc)
Rogue: 3/2 (1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2 etc)
Fighter: 2 (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, etc)

And you can even add 4/3 (2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1) and 3/4 (1, 1, 1, 0) if needed.

The cost of a feat would be then: 2 + 1 per feat prerequisite (namely, for every feat you need to get the desired feat, the cost increased by 1)

So, what do you think? Would it work?

[Debihuman]

There are standard feats you gain from leveling up regardless of your class. Class feats aren't given out equally. Fighters gain BONUS feats at every even level and some classes give out feats at random times. The spellcasters generally don't get additional feats from their classes because they are gaining spells. Feats can be powerful, perhaps not as powerful as spells at times, but that that seems the power balance.

Your way is far more complicated because you have to keep track of Valor points in addition to everything else. I'm not sure how valor points are earned and you didn't site to the source of this. It does help if we have all the information at hand instead of just bits of it.

Debby

[Phosphate]

That's what I was getting at, gaining of feats shouldn't necessarily be standardized to one per 3 levels. If lower tier classes had a system that made them earn more feats than higher tier classes, that would balance it somewhat (not completely, but still).


Your way is far more complicated because you have to keep track of Valor points in addition to everything else.

Not really, since you will almost never have more than 3 valor points at the same time and you would spend them right away for feats.


I'm not sure how valor points are earned and you didn't site to the source of this.

You just earn them by leveling up. And there's no source since...I came up with the idea.


It does help if we have all the information at hand instead of just bits of it.

This is mainly all the information. How many points individual classes gain would be agreed on with the DM beforehand mostly...pretty much the same way you set the skill point gain per level for homebrewed classes.

[ArcaneEngineer]

I always wondered why did all classes get the same number of feats at the same levels.

I guess that the most important question to ask is "Why?". Why have you wondered that and thus, what problem is this system meant to solve or how it is meant to add enjoyment?

If I read this correctly, valor points are a way to say "Fighters should get feat every level, Barbarians every second, and Wizards every third level, Rogues 2 feats for every 3 levels and so on". (A bit simplified, as some feats cost more)

I guess that this is a way to boost non-spellcasters by awarding them more feats? I'm not sure that's the best way to reach that goal. The obvious result is that this kind of feat-inflation is a nerf on humans and the second result is that this is probably also nerf on fighters, even though they gain feat every level + bonus feats (My count says that 8th level human fighter has 15 feats, which is getting a bit silly).

On the other hand, a wizard trying to buy spell focus and greater spell focus for a school? I assume he still gets his 1st level feat normally so that's spellfocus. To get GSF, he needs 3 valor points... So he can buy that feat at 5th level and next feat at 9th level at the soonest. It makes leveling up wizards even more boring than usual (since new spells are the only thing you gain)

[Debihuman]

That's what I was getting at, gaining of feats shouldn't necessarily be standardized to one per 3 levels. If lower tier classes had a system that made them earn more feats than higher tier classes, that would balance it somewhat (not completely, but still).

You said "class" feats when you meant "standard" feats then. They are two different things. You gain standard feats a 1 every three levels (except for your feat at 1st level and then if you are human you get a bonus feat for that).


Class feats are different. They don't come standard. What have class feats have to do with the standard feats if you don't like the standard feats?

If you are removing the standard feats and replacing them with valor feats that are also class based, then I suspect the feat proliferation will be unbalanced.


....[sic] You will almost never have more than 3 valor points at the same time and you would spend them right away for feats.

That's what you think. Crafty players may want to wait on choosing feats.


You just earn them by leveling up. And there's no source since...I came up with the idea.

Can you lose valor points? If all you do is earn points by leveling up and spend them on feats why bother with this convoluted system and just give out the bonus feats as part of the class abilities? Basically this is a way to get feat proliferation into the game because who doesn't want more feats?

Basically, you are removing the standard feats and replacing them with all class based on valor points that are also class based.

Debby

[bobthe6th]

Once you justify with "a wizard could do worse" you stop being credible. Wizards break the game from another plain with a laser.


Now this fix... I think Tome style scaling feats would work with this. Put valor into feats to gain higher level effects.

[Phosphate]

I guess that the most important question to ask is "Why?". Why have you wondered that and thus, what problem is this system meant to solve or how it is meant to add enjoyment?

By adding options, really.


If I read this correctly, valor points are a way to say "Fighters should get feat every level, Barbarians every second, and Wizards every third level, Rogues 2 feats for every 3 levels and so on". (A bit simplified, as some feats cost more)

If you want only low value feats, then yes, it mostly works like that.


I guess that this is a way to boost non-spellcasters by awarding them more feats? I'm not sure that's the best way to reach that goal. The obvious result is that this kind of feat-inflation is a nerf on humans and the second result is that this is probably also nerf on fighters, even though they gain feat every level + bonus feats (My count says that 8th level human fighter has 15 feats, which is getting a bit silly).

I can't see why "nerfing the humans" could be brought up as a negative - they're the best LA 0 anyway, nerfing them actually makes a lot of sense. Also, why is 15 feats by level 8 silly?


On the other hand, a wizard trying to buy spell focus and greater spell focus for a school? I assume he still gets his 1st level feat normally so that's spellfocus. To get GSF, he needs 3 valor points... So he can buy that feat at 5th level and next feat at 9th level at the soonest. It makes leveling up wizards even more boring than usual (since new spells are the only thing you gain)

Then don't use a wizard. Or even better, Prestige Class :). Also, dunno if in this system it would make sense to give a 1st level feat.


Class feats are different. They don't come standard. What have class feats have to do with the standard feats if you don't like the standard feats?

Keep class feats, no problem. Why ask?


If you are removing the standard feats and replacing them with valor feats that are also class based, then I suspect the feat proliferation will be unbalanced.

This is my intended goal, yes.


That's what you think. Crafty players may want to wait on choosing feats.

True, but those crafty players will WANT to keep track of their valor points, so everyone is happy.


Can you lose valor points? If all you do is earn points by leveling up and spend them on feats why bother with this convoluted system and just give out the bonus feats as part of the class abilities?

I think it DOES make sense to lose valor points if you receive permanent negative levels. Also, it's much less convoluted to use this system and change every single class' class abilities, really :)).


Basically, you are removing the standard feats and replacing them with all class based on valor points that are also class based.

Pretty much. Why is it bad?

Bobthe6th: hmm, I like your way of thinking. Don't have the Tome tho, so can't say for certain how it would work.

[Amechra]

I like how d20r handles it; you get a feat at every even level, and one at every 3rd level you take in a class. You also get 1 feat at 1st level.

So a single-classed Sorcerer 6 would have 6 feats, while a Wizard 1/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 2 would have 5 feats in all.

In other words, a 20th level Fighter would get 28 feats.

[Dsurion]

Bobthe6th: hmm, I like your way of thinking. Don't have the Tome tho, so can't say for certain how it would work.The Tome being referenced might be Frank and K's Races of War (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) under the section "The Failure of Feats".

[Seerow]

I don't mind the idea of some classes getting more feats than others, but then making feats cost more based on their prereqs is really painful. Especially when the base cost of the feat is more than most characters get at first level.



That said, doesn't pathfinder have an optional feat points system somewhere? It's not differentiated by class, but instead of feats every x levels, you get feat points every level that you can spend on feats, and feats have different values assigned based on the strength of the feat. Something like that can be pretty decent, though iirc the values used by pathfinder were objectively terrible.

[Dsurion]

That said, doesn't pathfinder have an optional feat points system somewhere? It's not differentiated by class, but instead of feats every x levels, you get feat points every level that you can spend on feats, and feats have different values assigned based on the strength of the feat. Something like that can be pretty decent, though iirc the values used by pathfinder were objectively terrible.That sounds pretty cool, actually. Was it as bad as the system Monte cooked up for 3.5? And where would one find this?

[Seerow]

That sounds pretty cool, actually. Was it as bad as the system Monte cooked up for 3.5? And where would one find this?

I'm not sure, I don't actually play pathfinder I just saw someone link it a few months back.

Like I said it was sound in concept, pretty poor in execution. I've thought a few times about making my own take on it, but then start wanting to rewrite feats, and then it turns into a big project I can't be assed to finish by myself.

[Phosphate]

That said, doesn't pathfinder have an optional feat points system somewhere? It's not differentiated by class, but instead of feats every x levels, you get feat points every level that you can spend on feats, and feats have different values assigned based on the strength of the feat. Something like that can be pretty decent, though iirc the values used by pathfinder were objectively terrible.

Hm, that's pretty cool actually (that effort has been put to classify each and every feat by strength, and it's fixable). Still think it should be differentiated by class, though.

[Tenno Seremel]

Quite a bit of nice feats for spellcasters are without prerequisites. While Fighter's are usually feat chains.

[Phosphate]

Yes, but fighters don't have to buy feats that cost a lot of valor points.

They can simply get them through the bonus feats they receive every 2 levels.

[RedWarlock]

Hm, that's pretty cool actually (that effort has been put to classify each and every feat by strength, and it's fixable). Still think it should be differentiated by class, though.

The big issue there is multi-classing, though. It might be better to have something like a base rate per level, but then +x bonus points granted as a class feature.

[Phosphate]

The big issue there is multi-classing, though. It might be better to have something like a base rate per level, but then +x bonus points granted as a class feature.

OR you can just, in the context of multiclassing, treat every single class as a separate progression. So, if say someone is Ranger 2/Druid 2, with:

Ranger: 1, 1 (0, 1, 1, 0 etc)
Druid: 1, 0 (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 etc)

You have 3 valor points. If you get a 3rd level in Ranger, you just take the next step from the ranger progression (aka you add 0). If you get a 3rd level in druid, you take the next step from the druid progression...which is 1. And so on and so forth.

[Seerow]

OR you can just, in the context of multiclassing, treat every single class as a separate progression. So, if say someone is Ranger 2/Druid 2, with:

Ranger: 1, 1 (0, 1, 1, 0 etc)
Druid: 1, 0 (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 etc)

You have 3 valor points. If you get a 3rd level in Ranger, you just take the next step from the ranger progression (aka you add 0). If you get a 3rd level in druid, you take the next step from the druid progression...which is 1. And so on and so forth.

If you're honestly that set on different progressions, why not just use BAB as your points? That way everyone has different progression, and probably the classes you most want to benefit will get the higher progression already, without needing to go through and customize each one independently.

[Phosphate]

Because BaB doesn't mean anything. Are you honestly saying that a cleric and a rogue are on the same level and should be treated equally in this respect?

There's a reason why specific classes gain a specific amount of skill points. The same reason makes sense here.

[Seerow]

Because BaB doesn't mean anything. Are you honestly saying that a cleric and a rogue are on the same level and should be treated equally in this respect?

There's a reason why specific classes gain a specific amount of skill points. The same reason makes sense here.

Actually yes, definitionally they are equal. Functionally the cleric is stronger. If you don't like that, you use the cloistered cleric variant.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.