Versatility Trap? How Will Expanded Feat Access Change Play?

[wayfare]

Hey All:

My group is considering a houserule that reads as follows:

Any time you gain a class feature, you may choose to replace that feature with a feat you meet the prerequistes for.

Aside from devaluing fighters even more, how wold this effect play?

[Lightlawbliss]

classes with more crudy class features will get more feats.

for an extreame example: trade illiteracy for a feat? HELL YES!!

also, do you call spell-casting a class feature?

[Rubik]

Any time wizards or psions would gain a metamagic/metapsionic/item creation bonus feat? Gain an unbounded bonus feat!

Wilders would love this. Hidden Talent instead of enervation? You bet.

[wayfare]

classes with more crudy class features will get more feats.

for an extreame example: trade illiteracy for a feat? HELL YES!!

also, do you call spell-casting a class feature?

I was thinking ig applied to anything the DM approves in the "special" column. In general, i dont think spellcasting would count.

[wayfare]

Any time wizards or psions would gain a metamagic/metapsionic/item creation bonus feat? Gain an unbounded bonus feat!

Wilders would love this. Hidden Talent instead of enervation? You bet.

Are there worse things than metamagic/creation feats?

Its all subject to DM permission, so i wouldnt worry about folks ditching intntional flaws built into a class.

[Zanos]

Fighter becomes a lot more interesting.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

With this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) and this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x), every class gets something at every level, so everyone would be able to get an extra feat at every level!

[Rubik]

Are there worse things than metamagic/creation feats?Yes, but there are also better things, if only barely.


Its all subject to DM permission, so i wouldnt worry about folks ditching intntional flaws built into a class.Pretty much anything but wild surge would be tradeable, for me. I don't much care for anything wilders get.

[tyckspoon]

Druids would be happy- Nature Sense, Resist Nature's Lure, Trackless Step, and Woodland Stride become Bonus Feat. Rogues and Barbarians would probably be very glad to trade out all of their Trap Sense progression for extra feats. Monks are notorious for having piles of fairly pointless class features, and while having 12 or so bonus feats might still not make them *good*, it certainly couldn't hurt.. (Still Mind, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, and all 10 Slow Fall improvements can all go. I'm sure you can find something to do with 13 feats over 20 levels that is better than all of those.)

Overall, I think it'd almost mean the end of being feat starved - most of the classes that are most hungry for feats also happen to be liberally loaded with really weak class features to trade away. (It would also severely dampen class uniqueness, however, as those weak class features are also usually where distinguishing fluffy mechanics are put.)

[Fax Celestis]

With this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) and this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x), every class gets something at every level, so everyone would be able to get an extra feat at every level!

Monte Cook plays with "everyone gets a feat every level" and says it works just fine.

I mean, it's Monte Cook, so grain of salt, yadda yadda, but still.

[wayfare]

The general line is that feats tend to be fairly weak compared to class features, with a few notable exceptions (metamagic/psionics, martial study, shocktrooper, lightning mace).

We hoped that it would actually work to improve uniqueness in classes. Do folks feel that it would have the opposite effect?

Any suggestions to make this work a bit more smooth;y?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I think my group once tried doing the opposite of the Open Minded feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#openMinded), where you could buy a feat for 5 skill points. It was a trainwreck.

I would definitely limit it to one per level. Don't want everyone dipping Ranger for three feats (relapse to 3.0). Looking over the classes, and ignoring the Dead Levels class features, it's the lower tier classes that get a bunch of (meaningless) class features at every level for their first ~10 levels. I'd say go ahead with it, though Fighter may need a bit of a boost to stay competitive. Just be sure to give their opponents about double their normal feats.

[Shazek]

Barbarian becomes universally better than the fighter (with the possible exceptions of Dungeoncrashing/Zhentarim), given that they have class features at every level many of which can be safely traded. Bards get a bit more versatile, but it doesn't seem to throw off balance too much. Clerics are more or less unchanged, but PrC's can be unbalanced by this. Druid becomes even more powerful, possibly netting it #1 for base class power. Fighter is still useless. Monk becomes almost playable, depending on what exactly you do with it, and how optimized it is. Give it Full BAB and make this houserule only affect it and you have a decent minimalist fix. I'd love this as a Paladin, since they're always feat-starved, but it isn't too unbalancing. Their optimization floor remains slightly above the fighter's, their ceiling moves up a little bit. Ranger can finally do TWF or Archery well and have other options, but becomes an incredible dip and probably the path of choice for a lot of Gish builds. Rogue.... meh. They already have Feat Rogue, this isn't too much of a change. Sorcerers get basically nothing, possibly one feat. The Generalist Wizard who plans to PrC out finally gets something to do with his familar (get rid of it). Specialist Wizards already have better things to do. I'm not going to go through the non-PHB base classes, or Prestige classes, but the benefits here vary wildly. Ranger and Monk get the most out of it, followed by Druid and Paladin. It's not in any way balanced, but seems fun. Be vary wary of allowing this and Homebrew classes in the same game, as they tend to have class features all the way up the side, given the distaste for dead levels many have.

[Teron]

Monte Cook plays with "everyone gets a feat every level" and says it works just fine.

I mean, it's Monte Cook, so grain of salt, yadda yadda, but still.
Sure, but if you want something like that, you should just give everyone the extra feats instead of handing them out almost randomly based on how many crappy features a class or build happens to include. This approach also avoids incentivizing people to drop weak but fluffy abilities.

[wayfare]

Sure, but if you want something like that, you should just give everyone the extra feats instead of handing them out almost randomly based on how many crappy features a class or build happens to include. This approach also avoids incentivizing people to drop weak but fluffy abilities.

See, in my mind, you have the T1/2 spellcasters that are really defined by their spell selection who don't really need anything to lift them. And an extra feat every level essentially gives them all the metamagic ever, instead of a few tough decisions.

Besides, with the amount of dipping going on, its not like people are sticking to the original flavor of a class. I really want to play a Dread Necromancer 1/Rogue 5 eventually going into assassin. This guy isn't, in my mind, an apprentice wizard who is an adventuring scoundrel. Rather, he is a doctor who specializes in flows of life-force through teh body and can disrupt those flows in unsuspecting enemies to inflict punishing damage.

I don't really think swapping features out for feats is really all that different from multiclassing.

[Chronos]

The general line is that feats tend to be fairly weak compared to class features, with a few notable exceptions (metamagic/psionics, martial study, shocktrooper, lightning mace).
Feats are generally fairly weak compared to good class features. But not all class features are better than feats.

[wayfare]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys!

Does anybody think this will be a major imbalance?

[Tyndmyr]

classes with more crudy class features will get more feats.

for an extreame example: trade illiteracy for a feat? HELL YES!!

also, do you call spell-casting a class feature?

It is, but only one, per Illithid Savant.

However, trading it for a single feat would almost invariably be a poor move.

Monks, though, could suck a lot less.

Overall, I consider this reasonably balanced. The most powerful classes are spellcasters, which get very few class features, most of which are not worth trading away. Lower tier classes get to make much heavier use of this.

The reverse(trading feats for class features) would certainly not be balanced at all, though.

[Lightlawbliss]

Does anybody think this will be a major imbalance?

depends on the group

A group of heavy optimizers could abuse this heavily.

A group of new players could ruin the classes.

A group of casual players, this probably wouldn't be to bad.

[Mystral]

Why, this would of course make monks even more of a force to be reckoned with, considering they get "the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes".

[Teron]

See, in my mind, you have the T1/2 spellcasters that are really defined by their spell selection who don't really need anything to lift them. And an extra feat every level essentially gives them all the metamagic ever, instead of a few tough decisions.

Besides, with the amount of dipping going on, its not like people are sticking to the original flavor of a class. I really want to play a Dread Necromancer 1/Rogue 5 eventually going into assassin. This guy isn't, in my mind, an apprentice wizard who is an adventuring scoundrel. Rather, he is a doctor who specializes in flows of life-force through teh body and can disrupt those flows in unsuspecting enemies to inflict punishing damage.

I don't really think swapping features out for feats is really all that different from multiclassing.
I almost said something about leaving out (or giving fewer feats to) high tier classes, but this post highlights one of the problems (in my opinion) with your approach: for some reason, the druid alone among those classes gets a bunch of basically free feats by giving up all the little abilities that make him more "druidy" -- a loss from both a balance and fluff perspective. I think your doctor example also illustrates my second point. You could easily find a feat more useful -- and maybe even more fitting -- than charnel touch; isn't it better if you don't have to make that choice? I'm also thinking of stuff like the warblade's Int-based features that help make the smart warrior concept viable, but can't compare to a bunch of bonus feats; I'd hate to have to choose.

[Vinyl Scratch]

Why, this would of course make monks even more of a force to be reckoned with, considering they get "the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes".

It would be a Fighter that trades off BAB for more feats and better saves, I guess.

[Chronos]

As opposed to the fighter that gets more feats and a larger hit die for absolutely free?

[Spuddles]

Is a Paladin's Code of Conduct a class feature?

[Fax Celestis]

Is a Paladin's Code of Conduct a class feature?

Nope. It's not listed on the class table.

[wayfare]

Is a Paladin's Code of Conduct a class feature?

Lol, I don't think so.

Anything that can be considered a negative will almost assuredly never count for this rule.

[gr8artist]

If you do this, consider giving the fighter extra stuff to fill in his dead levels. Perhaps he alternates, taking combat feats at even levels and non-combat feats at odd? This would make for some interesting fighters, and they'd be a lot more than one-trick ponies.
One method of managing such a change would be to go through every class table and identify the specific class features that could be feat'd out. This keeps monks from turning into unarmed fighters, druids from ruining the game, etc.
Another option would be to limit the total number of trades a character can make. This eliminates the dips to nab extra feats, as well as the monk/druid turning into 20 levels of feats.

We tried a prehistoric campaign, which did away with most of the class system. At every level, we gained 1 class feature, which we could take from any features that any normal class would have at that point, or we could take a feat. We got no 1/3 feats, though, but a massive amount of magical-item-goodness.
It was neat to build ranger/rog/pal by cherry-picking the desired features from each. I nabbed some cleric domain powers, rogue fast stealth, druid movement through brush, and paladin divine bond. Good times.

[TiaC]

Is a Paladin's Code of Conduct a class feature?

But if you trade away the Code of Conduct you lose all the flavor of being holier-than-thou. That's obviously an unacceptably large cost.

[wayfare]

So, if we give this a shot, would anybody be interested in a campaign journal?

[ericgrau]

Seems too random. There's no rhyme or reason behind classes that get a lot of of pointless abilities that become feats and those that get few.

Maybe you could place a value on each specific class feature that is slightly worse than the feature. Such and such is worth half a feat, such and such is worth 1.5 feats, etc. I say to err on the low side to make it a tough choice that is only taken for specific builds: the player only ditches the features that are far from his build, not all of them. Otherwise you may as well just hand out a pile of feats. And like I said that seems to be a random number. Or else you get yet another fighter class.

For example everyone wants to dump trap sense. So you have to value it so low that every trap monkey focused rogue (but not necessarily a combat or social rogue) will automatically want to keep it. Even on a trap monkey it's pretty lousy, so it would have to have quite a low value. Maybe 10%-15% of a feat per +1.

If you want to buff specific classes I'd do that separately from this system, or again you go back to a new pile-of-feats fighter class who won't ever take any of his class features. Or the same class features always get dumped, which isn't quite as bad I suppose. But that's no different than giving out extra feats to everyone, only more complicated.

[Rubik]

What if you replaced fighter with this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303398

[wayfare]

What if you replaced fighter with this? http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303398

Its a bruiser version of a factotum?

I think we could do will by just using the fighter type classes that are not fighters -- marshal, samurai, barbarian, paladin, knight, swashbuckler, etc.