Getting rid of Feat Taxes

[defiantdan]

I was wondering if anyone on this board has attempted this kind of homebrew. I have browsed around and looked for something like this but many of the "fixes" I find tend to bring everyone to tier 3. I'm looking for some kind of fix that just helps makes feats a more meaniful choice at all levels. Like Druids should just get Natural spell as a class feature, not a required feat at level 6. Fighters(and ToB) achieve Weapon focus and it's ilk as a feature, spending bonus feats to improve combat maneuvers. Spell Focus doing something relevant for the school, spell focus: conj is silly. D&D for myself and the others I play with like High fantasy. Extraordinary Heroes tackling extraordinary challenges.

If nothing like this exists what would you guys do to help eliminate the feat tax?

[Andezzar]

I think nobody has bothered with devising a system because it would not help if applied across the board. Druid and wizard are Tier 1 even with the feat tax, whereas a fighter would not become tier 3 even if he got all fighter feats for free.

I would shorten some feat chains. Doing away with ambidexterity during the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was a good idea, but it did not go far enough. One feat for all extra attacks and possibly the shield bonus would be adequate.

The augment summoning prerequisite is just so annoying because the DC increase from spell focus does not benefit summoned creatures.

[Telonius]

Personally I would delete Natural Spell from the game before I made it a class feature, but that's another story.

I do houserule things a bit to try to help out the non-magical classes. Two-Weapon Fighting, for instance, will give an extra attack at each iterative, instead of just the first. Improved and Greater decrease the penalties by -1 each, meaning a Ranger with TWF would still get something out of his class features. Same thing for Rapid Shot. Either way, your average Rogue would only have to spend one feat to get what he really wants, which is extra attacks.

I've played around with the idea of making Finesse/Power Attack based on the nature of the weapon, rather than needing to take a feat for it. As in, if it's finesse-able at all, any character can use their Dex to modify the attack roll; any character can subtract from the attack roll to get a bonus to damage. I've never actually tried it out in-game, but it seems like a pretty intuitive thing to do. It would particularly help out some of the more feat-starved classes like Paladin and Barbarian, and make Monks a bit less MAD. As is, I do houserule away the +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse. It always seemed silly to me that Rogues need to wait until third level to take the feat.

EDIT: Having otherwise-useless feats as a prerequisite for Prestige Classes is another issue altogether. To take your example, Spell Focus (Conjuration) is a prereq for Thaumaturgist. The idea there is that to enter a Prestige Class, you focus your resources into a particular niche, and get something better out of it. If you removed the feat prereq, then there's almost no reason for a Cleric not to take the PrC. Making the feat do something else that's nice for a summoning-centered character might be okay, too; but realize that you'll probably be multiplying the power of the end result.

[jiriku]

I have. It took about two years to rebalance the whole system such that you can play most any character concept and not have to worry about balance between classes, but we're really happy with the result. Check the sig and you'll see most of my work there. On these forums, my feat fixes and class are broken up through several pages. I also have a set of Microsoft Word documents that collects all my changes and organizes them for easy reference. Feel free to send me a PM if you'd like me to email you a copy.

[defiantdan]

I don't really have an issue with balance or tier 1's. My group and I usually play tier 1's or gestalted tier 3's. I was just browsing around for material that can help provide a quick fix to annoying feat taxes or repurposes them to be more useful. My group and I have already done some stuff. Like toughness comes in flavors to change what gets added to HD per level up. Natural Spell is a Class Feature. Spell Focus: conj increases duration by 1. Skills points spent in crafting earn you crafting feats.

I like the weapon finess idea. so things that are light weapons are choice of using dex or str. Two handed weapons allow for power attack.

Anything else?

[Andezzar]

Like toughness comes in flavors to change what gets added to HD per level up.Could you elaborate on that?

Natural Spell is a Class Feature. Spell Focus: conj increases duration by 1. Skills points spent in crafting earn you crafting feats.Interesting. Unnecessary IMHO, but interesting nonetheless.

[Telonius]

I

I like the weapon finess idea. so things that are light weapons are choice of using dex or str. Two handed weapons allow for power attack.



It's basically modeled after the Power Attack feat as it already is. Any character wielding a two-handed weapons (or one-handed wielded in two hands) would get you a 2-to-1 return. One-handed gets you 1-to-1. Light weapons don't get that at all.

[Curmudgeon]

Most Rogues have lots of feat taxes:

Weapon Finesse - a tax on the dexterous
Darkstalker - a tax on the stealthy
Craven - a tax on all classes with sneak attack or sudden strike
Savvy Rogue - a tax on all Rogues

[VoxRationis]

I was wondering if anyone on this board has attempted this kind of homebrew. I have browsed around and looked for something like this but many of the "fixes" I find tend to bring everyone to tier 3. I'm looking for some kind of fix that just helps makes feats a more meaniful choice at all levels. Like Druids should just get Natural spell as a class feature, not a required feat at level 6. Fighters(and ToB) achieve Weapon focus and it's ilk as a feature, spending bonus feats to improve combat maneuvers. Spell Focus doing something relevant for the school, spell focus: conj is silly. D&D for myself and the others I play with like High fantasy. Extraordinary Heroes tackling extraordinary challenges.

If nothing like this exists what would you guys do to help eliminate the feat tax?

Spell focus (conjuration) is not worthless; plenty of powerful conjuration spells have a saving throw (glitterdust comes to mind), though of course the heart of the school consists of spells without them.

I myself would cut out Natural Spell rather than give it for free—it makes the question of whether or not to use Wild Shape an actual question.

I think I once saw someone here (I forget who) suggest giving fighters in particular the starts of all the combat feat chains (Dodge, Combat Expertise, etc.) for free.

[Andezzar]

Most Rogues have lots of feat taxes:

Weapon Finesse - a tax on the dexterous
Darkstalker - a tax on the stealthy
Craven - a tax on all classes with sneak attack or sudden strike
Savvy Rogue - a tax on all Rogues
You forgot HiPS. That's even a class tax.

[Flickerdart]

Most Rogues have lots of feat taxes:

Weapon Finesse - a tax on the dexterous
Darkstalker - a tax on the stealthy
Craven - a tax on all classes with sneak attack or sudden strike
Savvy Rogue - a tax on all Rogues

I wouldn't call Craven or Savvy Rogue feat taxes. Darkstalker is necessary to use stealth of any kind around creatures with special vision modes, and Weapon Finesse is necessary to fight in melee without a high STR - but nothing is stopping a rogue from dealing loads of damage without Craven, or using his rogue special abilities without Savvy Rogue. Sure, they're good feats that many rogues will want, but they're not necessary any more than it is necessary for all wizards to take Incantatrix.

[Curmudgeon]

You forgot HiPS. That's even a class tax.
Or, alternatively, a template tax. It's just not a feat tax.

[Hrugner]

Removing feat taxes would force feats to be at a one to one value with other feat choices. By having one feat effectively cost two feats, you can have feats provide a broader range of abilities. I don't see any real value in doing this. Now, if you think feats are too expensive, then reducing some feat taxes could be a good idea. I think the best option would be to have prerequisites based on the ability the feat provides rather than having the feat itself.

[Extra Anchovies]

Removing feat taxes would force feats to be at a one to one value with other feat choices. By having one feat effectively cost two feats, you can have feats provide a broader range of abilities. I don't see any real value in doing this. Now, if you think feats are too expensive, then reducing some feat taxes could be a good idea. I think the best option would be to have prerequisites based on the ability the feat provides rather than having the feat itself.

Prerequisites =/= feat taxes. A feat tax is something that is required for a class to function properly, like Darkstalker, or something that is required for access to other stuff but that would otherwise never be taken, like Combat Casting. It makes sense to gate Great Cleave behind Cleave, but it doesn't make sense to gate Improved Trip behind Combat Expertise.

[Segev]

The only two genuine "feat taxes" of the "you WILL take this if you're playing this class" sort that I can think of are Natural Spell (for Druids) and Improved Binding (for Binders). You just will take them. No question. To fail to do so greatly weakens you.

The only reason I can think of for such feats is not to help build different kinds of members of these classes, but to say, "this class, played at full effectiveness, is too powerful; we must tax you one of your feats for full use of your class features."

This is not, really, a bad thing, when used well. I question its necessity for most Binders, and its effectiveness for Druids, but the concept is sound. "This class is worth X levels and a feat, rather than just X levels," is a valid design consideration.

In fact, I'd almost like to see more of it, but done with an eye towards providing equally viable options to sprout from there.

Perhaps an "Enchanted Form" feat that enabled a druid in a wild shape to sacrifice a spell slot for an enhancement bonus to a physical stat equal to the level of the slot sacrificed which lasts for one round. Or a feat that let them sacrifice Wild Shape uses for more Summon Nature's Ally spontaneous castings, or to enhance the summoned creatures.

Or a Binder feat which granted additional options for the perks they can pick from just being bound to a vestige (the ones which include +5 hp or +2 to a save and the like). Heck, a Binder feat which increased your Binder level for purposes of choosing those, rather than for purposes of Binding itself.

[OldTrees1]

If nothing like this exists what would you guys do to help eliminate the feat tax?

Any time a player selects a feat/gains a bonus feat that is not worth a feat slot, have them add to it until you are satisfied.

Example 1:
Bob the Fighter wants to take Improved Bullrush. I would insist they add to it. Perhaps they get Improved Bullrush and Knockback(sans size prereq) as a single feat.

Example 2:
Jill the Fighter wants to take Weapon Focus. I would insist they add to it. Personally the entire Weapon Focus line (+4 Atk, +6 Dam, 1 special, and Weapon Supremacy) feels a tad much for a single feat. So maybe they would need to take Weapon Supremacy separately.

Alternatively they could add player invented features to bring the feat up to my standards.

Example 3:
Sam the Fighter wants to take Improved Disarm. I would insist they add to it. They suggest gaining a free Disarm check anytime they score a critical hit. I suggest increasing that to every hit and call it good.

[Venger]

Most Rogues have lots of feat taxes:

Weapon Finesse - a tax on the dexterous
Darkstalker - a tax on the stealthy
Craven - a tax on all classes with sneak attack or sudden strike
Savvy Rogue - a tax on all Rogues


savvy rogue? I assume you mean for the opportunist ability. is that really more useful than a free feat? that you don't even have to meet the reqs for

[Hrugner]

Prerequisites =/= feat taxes. A feat tax is something that is required for a class to function properly, like Darkstalker, or something that is required for access to other stuff but that would otherwise never be taken, like Combat Casting. It makes sense to gate Great Cleave behind Cleave, but it doesn't make sense to gate Improved Trip behind Combat Expertise.

I agree that not all prerequisites are feat taxes, but that doesn't take anything away from the rest of the argument. If you flatten out the cost of all feats, then the value of all feats also needs to flatten out, it's a very boring solution to a barely connected problem. If feats provide something that is worthless to take advantage of, then that's a problem with those feats or tools far more than it is with feat taxes/prerequisites.

[Extra Anchovies]

I agree that not all prerequisites are feat taxes, but that doesn't take anything away from the rest of the argument. If you flatten out the cost of all feats, then the value of all feats also needs to flatten out, it's a very boring solution to a barely connected problem. If feats provide something that is worthless to take advantage of, then that's a problem with those feats or tools far more than it is with feat taxes/prerequisites.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The argument was never that feats shouldn't have other feats as prerequisites. It's that feats (and other things) shouldn't have useless feats as prerequisites, and feats that a class can't get by without. Nobody ever uses Combat Expertise; people only ever take it to get improved trip (and a lot of builds instead have a two-level barbarian dip to get around the tax), so Combat Expertise should be removed. Every rogue needs Darkstalker, so it should be a class feature.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Check out my Giants and Graveyards system tweak/rewrite-- the Feat section specifically. I hand out a bunch of common "must have this feat to function" and/or prerequisite feats for free (Power Attack, Improved Unarmed Strike, etc) at BAB +1, grant some follow-up feats automatically at higher BABs (Improved TWF, Weapon Specialization, etc), and flat-out deleted a whole bunch of the annoying ones (all the +2/+2 skill feats, for instance).

[Segev]

I wonder if it would break things if one just granted a number (maybe 5, 10, or 20) free feats to every character, which they can hold in reserve to take at any time.

Want Leadership? You can take it at 6th level with that 6th level feat or with one of your "free" feats. Need 2-3 feats for that PrC? Use your "free" ones right as you want to enter it. Front-load yourself if you like, or hold off until you hit a magic level that gives you the prerequisites you need for several feats you really wanted but couldn't have otherwise worked into the build.

[Hrugner]

My argument is that using mostly useless feats as a way to increase the cost of some feats allows for more variety in the power of individual feats. However, I do think there shouldn't be 0(or less) value feats and that those feats should be addressed on their own.

Combat expertise is the most obvious choice as it requires not just a feat, but a stat, and is required for most combat maneuvers. Removing it as a prerequisite removes the one thing the feat is good for, so it's probably better to fix the feat than remove it's value.

If your point is that 0 value feats shouldn't exist, then I agree. I don't know if handing out those feats for free or removing their one value are the best option though.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't know if handing out those feats for free or removing their one value are the best option though.
I usually prefer granting them for free. D&D has an awful lot of moving parts, and it tends to be better to mess with as few as possible.

[Flickerdart]

I wonder if it would break things if one just granted a number (maybe 5, 10, or 20) free feats to every character, which they can hold in reserve to take at any time.
I hand out a second feat track of "barely feats" at 2nd, 4th, 7th, etc. The list of "barely feats" covers most of these feat tax feats, and players who aren't trying to cram a 10th level combo into 5th level avoid having to spend previous real feat slots on crappy feats.

[Telok]

Let me see if I can remember what I did in a campaign I ran a few years ago.

Dodge and Point Blank Shot were no longer needed for anything. Combat Expertise scaled like Power Attack. Power Attack granted Cleave. Toughness granted Improved Toughness, and it all stacked. Weapon Finesse and a couple others did't have BAB requirements. There were some others too.

What I'd add is Weapon Focus grants Weapon Specalization at BAB > 4 if you are a full BAB base class. All feats with Two Weapon Fighting in the name are granted when you get the required BAB if you have TWF. Whack some of the prerequsites off of the weapon style feats. Remove the fighter only thing for weapon feats.

Two things I did that the forums will pitch a fit about but actually worked well were that I took Natural Spell out behind the shed and shot it. Then I brought Eschew Materials in line with Silent Spell and Still Spell, it became a +1 metamagic. Nobody ever complained or had any difficulties in actual games.

I let lots of stuff stack too. If someone wanted to take Weapon Focus five times I was OK with it. I think that generally anything that gave a measely +1 or +2 would stack if you took it more than once. One guy took SF:Necromancy three times, that wasn't any problem.

[martixy]

I am actually a huge fan of eliminating feat taxes.

It's part of my ongoing effort of home-brewing the crap away. At first it was supposed to be a few necessary fixes, then it ran away from me and grew into my very own rules compendium. And it's still growing. For example I just added Improved Binding to my list.

Among the other things I merge Point-Blank and Precise Shot, Dodge and Mobility, combat maneuvers such as Bull Rush, Trip, Disarm, etc.
I use weapon groups.
Weapon Finesse is a weapon-specific property.
Improved Unarmed Strike, Combat Expertise and Power Attack are BAB-based.
TWF provides the same progression for off-hand, as normal BAB does for main-hand.

(Notice the pattern? Yea. Martials need the buffs.)

[defiantdan]

This stuff is awesome guys :) thanks for all the suggestions and comments. I will check out Giants and Graveyards. I'm liking what I see so far :).

[Grod_The_Giant]

This stuff is awesome guys :) thanks for all the suggestions and comments. I will check out Giants and Graveyards. I'm liking what I see so far :).
Aww, thanks, dude :smallredface:. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or suggestions or whatnot.

[Fitz10019]

I've played around with the idea of making Finesse/Power Attack based on the nature of the weapon, rather than needing to take a feat for it. As in, if it's finesse-able at all, any character can use their Dex to modify the attack roll; any character can subtract from the attack roll to get a bonus to damage. I've never actually tried it out in-game, but it seems like a pretty intuitive thing to do. It would particularly help out some of the more feat-starved classes like Paladin and Barbarian, and make Monks a bit less MAD. As is, I do houserule away the +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse. It always seemed silly to me that Rogues need to wait until third level to take the feat.

Rather than weapon-based, my thought was that a character automatically gets Weapon Finesse with a Dex of 16, and Power Attack with a Str of 16 [and not magically assisted to get to 16]. When you have that much of a physical skill, those are the styles that work for you and you discover them naturally. Players essentially buy the feats when they spend the ability score points.

[martixy]

Aww, thanks, dude :smallredface:. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or suggestions or whatnot.

Wut?

Banning Wizard, Sorcerer?

I really don't care about mechanics at this point. You are messing with the identity of the game.

Going D&D and not being able to play the mighty Wizard.... right.

Fine among close friends, but hell no otherwise.

[Venger]

Wut?

Banning Wizard, Sorcerer?

I really don't care about mechanics at this point. You are messing with the identity of the game.

Going D&D and not being able to play the mighty Wizard.... right.

Fine among close friends, but hell no otherwise.

1) they're just houserules, if you don't like them, don't use them
2) the name of your class is just something on your sheet. if you're rolling beguiler or witch or whatever, you could easily call yourself a sorcerer in-character if you'd like to.
3) lots of people, if not ban outright, enjoy playing games without any T1s in the party. it really helps reduce the disparity between casters and mundanes if everyone's around the same tier

[martixy]

I really do get that. (I'm on these forums after all.)
It just strikes me as something more basic than mechanics. Or rather banning such iconic classes based on mechanics just doesn't sit right. Though I have no problem with doing so in a low-magic world.

[Andezzar]

Yeah, Faerun (and probably Greyhawk too) without wizards just sounds wrong.

[Andreaz]

I was wondering if anyone on this board has attempted this kind of homebrew. I have browsed around and looked for something like this but many of the "fixes" I find tend to bring everyone to tier 3. I'm looking for some kind of fix that just helps makes feats a more meaniful choice at all levels. Like Druids should just get Natural spell as a class feature, not a required feat at level 6. Fighters(and ToB) achieve Weapon focus and it's ilk as a feature, spending bonus feats to improve combat maneuvers. Spell Focus doing something relevant for the school, spell focus: conj is silly. D&D for myself and the others I play with like High fantasy. Extraordinary Heroes tackling extraordinary challenges.

If nothing like this exists what would you guys do to help eliminate the feat tax?
My anti-tax houserules don't take tiers into consideration, just the bore that are feat taxes.
The main contender is, of course, two-weapon fighting. Baseline TWF is native to everyone ever. A single TWF feat gives your offhand full iterative attacks, with the requisite being either DEX 15 or STR 15. And it can comport 1h weapons in the offhand because screw you I want to wield a longsword with a waraxe.

[Vhaidara]

If you actually look at the system, the Wizard got banned in favor of new classes that fulfill the role without being broken in pretty much every way imaginable. My personal favorite of the replacements is the Ritualist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325646-The-Ritualist-A-tier-3-crafter-spellbook-user-maybe-(3-5-PEACH)), which gets the Wizard's idea of "Give me the time, and I can do anything" without being broken.

[JohnDaBarr]

Once we houseruled that EVERYONE gets Fighters feat progression and Fighter gets ToB maneuvers. It was actually a good game where everyone could take some low key feats that you otherwise wouldn't even dream of taking.

And in a different game we had a DM who gave away low key feats as a reward. A example ''lol you got a nat 20 on a will save you should have failed and pulled some brilliant ****!! here now you have IRON WILL'' or ''ooh instant deat on the BBEG's lieutenant!! now you have Improve Critical''
In that game I ended up having some 50 feats, most of whom I never heard off!!

Edit: Spelling and Grammar