how does removing feats as prerequisites to other feats effect the game?

[weet555]

More or less the question in the title. However feats still have there non feat prerequisites and feats inherent non feat prerequisites from their prerequisite feat.

For example: a player can take Spring Attack if they have dex 13 and a bab of +4 but they don't need Dodge or Mobility. If that makes sense.

I understand it would reduce the number of dead feats a player takes and will let players get powerful feats early. But is there anything i'm missing? Any help will be appreciated.

[SangoProduction]

Sweeping changes almost always hit something they don't intend to. Yes, you get your target, but there's collateral damage, like Persistent Spell not having any prerequisites. And considering the only time you really ever use really Persistent Spell is Persistomancy, you don't want or need Extend Spell anyway. You also affect things like the Aberrant Blood chain. And people can take (Greater) X feats without getting the lesser ones, which normally isn't a big deal, but again, this is a sweeping change. Could be including things I can't think of right now.

[barakaka]

I ran a high-ish level sorc who was persisting a lot of spells. In that case, Extend Spell actually sees some use in a Persisto-mancy build, as you really need to conserve spell slots per day for crowd control and utility spells. Persistent Extend Spell makes it last 2 days, which means half the slots used.

I'd imagine that Fighter could be pretty fun with reduced feat requirements. No Weapon Focus or Dodge clogging up your bonus Fighter feats. Depending on starting level, it could really mess with progression of characters with powerful feat chains. A Rogue probably doesn't want to take Improved Two Weapon Fighting if he could take the Greater version in a few more levels and have a spare feat to throw around. Also, like the TWF chain, there are a lot of feat chains that rely on the previous effects in their RAW text. Does GTWF even work if you don't have ITWF? Does this ruling just grant you the effects of TWF and ITWF as well as the feat you're actually getting?

Also, if you're ruling "yes" on that last question, Ghostwalk's Ghost template could be pretty sick if you go Eidolon for all those sweet ghost feats. Barely any of them have a level requirement, so you're picking up the full feat chain there.

[Grod_The_Giant]

An easier and less sweeping change, perhaps, would be to go through remove a bunch of the crappier prerequisite feats. Just go in and axe things like Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, and Point-Blank Shot, without replacing them as prerequisites. Other things like Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Shield Bash could be granted for free. That cuts down on useless feat taxes considerably without stressing anything else too much-- it's what I did for the Giants and Graveyards fix in my sig.

[Jay R]

If you want your PCs to have upper level abilities, why not just start at a higher level?

[Particle_Man]

Rangers and Monks would become a little less special, since one of their schticks was to get bonus feats without requiring other feats as prerequisites.

[Gray Mage]

If you want your PCs to have upper level abilities, why not just start at a higher level?

I think the point is more to remove feat taxes.

[Red Fel]

More or less the question in the title. However feats still have there non feat prerequisites and feats inherent non feat prerequisites from their prerequisite feat.

For example: a player can take Spring Attack if they have dex 13 and a bab of +4 but they don't need Dodge or Mobility. If that makes sense.

I understand it would reduce the number of dead feats a player takes and will let players get powerful feats early. But is there anything i'm missing? Any help will be appreciated.

What a lot of fixes I've seen do is actually the opposite - instead of having the good feats no longer hidden behind prerequisites, they combine the two. For example, you could easily combine Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack into a single feat, with features unlocking at different levels. Take Dodge as a feat, with its benefits; at a certain BAB, gain Mobility's benefits; and at another BAB, gain Spring Attack's benefits. You can do the same thing with Weapon Focus / GWF / WS / GWS.

An alternative is to simply take some of these things that are considered feat taxes, and fold them into BAB - at a certain BAB, you get a free Weapon Focus, or Dodge, or Combat Expertise, or something. You just get them as a function of being competent in melee combat.

But yeah. As a general rule, messing with things with a broad brush has collateral effects, as Sango points out. And frequently, attempts to make melees specifically more powerful will have added benefits for casters, which generally isn't the goal.

[Jay R]

I think the point is more to remove feat taxes.

Obviously. But that's just a semantic distinction. However you phrase it, it's still trying to give upper-level abilities to lower levels. If you want upper level abilities, why not just play the upper levels?

[eggynack]

Obviously. But that's just a semantic distinction. However you phrase it, it's still trying to give upper-level abilities to lower levels. If you want upper level abilities, why not just play the upper levels?
It's not all about absolute character based power level. It's also about the relative power level of various options. A major commonality between 5th and 20th level fighters is that neither is likely to take whirlwind attack.

[Red Fel]

Obviously. But that's just a semantic distinction. However you phrase it, it's still trying to give upper-level abilities to lower levels. If you want upper level abilities, why not just play the upper levels?

Playing upper levels doesn't change the fact that to get the good option, you have to take the bad option. That's what a feat tax is.

It's not about giving upper-level abilities to lower levels. It's about doing away with the need to waste a feat on garbage before you can get gold. Let the player use the feat on something actually useful, and take the good feat without the tax.

[weet555]

I'm happy for the number of replies, and I don't think I can answer them all individually. The reason I'm thinking this change isn't to remove feat chains that's more a side effect. The reason I'm doing this is I'm going to run a campaign call over powered which has the feature of tristalt (gestalt but three class instead of two). I make no illusion that this could be balanced in any way.

So what I'm getting it this might brake a few greater feats, undermine rangers and monks and give access to some really big feats early?

Just so it's said somewhere the starting level is 7. Again thanks for all the replies.

[Doctor Awkward]

More or less the question in the title. However feats still have there non feat prerequisites and feats inherent non feat prerequisites from their prerequisite feat.

For example: a player can take Spring Attack if they have dex 13 and a bab of +4 but they don't need Dodge or Mobility. If that makes sense.

I understand it would reduce the number of dead feats a player takes and will let players get powerful feats early. But is there anything i'm missing? Any help will be appreciated.

The simplified answer is that it will affect the game in exactly the same way that flaws do.

Almost no one builds a character with a flaw that has a compelling effect on the character itself-- like, say, a middle-aged combat archer who is a shell-shocked war veteran and has the Shaky flaw as a result. Instead they build a character, take a flaw that will never affect them-- Noncombatant on a primary caster, murky-eyed on someone with a way to ignore miss chances entirely-- or a flaw that could actually be a benefit, such as Vulnerable on a crusader, in order to gain a free feat.

And a lot of the time, this feat is a tax for the thing that they really want-- Toughness or Iron Will to meet a prerequisite for a prestige class, Point Blank Shot to get Precise Shot, or Improved Bull Rush to get Shock Trooper.

The end result is a character that is going to get a thing they were going to have anyway, it's just that it will happen earlier than it normally would have. Removing feat chains as a prerequisite will have similar results.


Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective and dependent upon how strong you want your players to be at a given level.


EDIT: So far as the unintended consequences go, I think those are a lot fewer than they would seem to be. Like you can say, "People will take Improved Two-Weapon fighting just to get an off-hand attack!" but those same people were likely going to take Two-Weapon fighting anyway to reduce the attack roll penalties. So...

[Zaq]

I think it's a bad change in a vacuum if you just implement the rule and call it a day, but I think it's a very good change if you have an actively involved GM with veto power to stop the crazier stuff.

[Jay R]

Playing upper levels doesn't change the fact that to get the good option, you have to take the bad option. That's what a feat tax is.

It's not about giving upper-level abilities to lower levels. It's about doing away with the need to waste a feat on garbage before you can get gold. Let the player use the feat on something actually useful, and take the good feat without the tax.

There's a lot of overlap, but there's an easy way to tell the difference.

If the goal is to do away with the need to waste a feat on garbage, and let them use the feat on something actually useful, but not to get an upper-level feat at lower levels, then people would propose substituting a different, less garbage-like prerequisite.

But if the goal is to get upper level feats at lower levels, then people will propose disposing of the prerequisites.

----------------------

To the OP:

You're running an experiment. Therefore no matter what we think will happen, the goal is to really find out in practice. So I propose that you honestly propose it as an experiment, telling your players that you're not sure what the effects will be, and that changes might be made in-game if it makes some PCs too powerful.

Besides being straightforward in the approach, this would give the players incentive to avoid grossly over-powered ideas, and aim at having a fun experiment.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a lot of overlap, but there's an easy way to tell the difference.

If the goal is to do away with the need to waste a feat on garbage, and let them use the feat on something actually useful, but not to get an upper-level feat at lower levels, then people would propose substituting a different, less garbage-like prerequisite.
I dunno; I don't think there are many (any?) high-power feats that are gated behind prerequisites only-- even things like Whirlwind Attack and Improved TWF have BAB requirements.

[The Insanity]

How about instead you do something like this:
- feats that don't have feat prerequisites have to be taken normally with a feat slot and you have to meet their other prereqs (for example, you need to have Dex 13 for Dodge and use a normal slot or a class's bonus slot to take it);
- if you have a feat that is a prereq for another feat, you gain that other feat for free as long as you meet its other prereqs (for example, if you take Dodge, you gain Mobility for free since you already have Dex 13);
- free feats count as feats taken for prereqs;

[Endarire]

Alternatively, just don't require any core feat as a prereq. Lots of things require Dodge or Mobility or Weapon Focus or... and could likely be taken without these prereqs just fine.

I'm also a big fan of removing ability score prereqs from feats. A Troll Fighter should not be too dumb to use Improved Trip!

Overall, it seems your goal is to let people take the feats they want to take, which is admirable. Also, remember, many of the most powerful feats don't require other feats (Leadership, Improved Initiative, Quicken Spell, Uncanny Forethought, Natural Spell), or have easily-bypassed means of qualification (Otyugh Hole for Iron Will).

[Jay R]

I dunno; I don't think there are many (any?) high-power feats that are gated behind prerequisites only-- even things like Whirlwind Attack and Improved TWF have BAB requirements.

That is a meaningful requirement only if people could get Whirlwind Attack by level 3 with the feat prerequisites but no BAB requirement. That's simply untrue.

If people actually believed that the BAB requirements were keeping people away from the feats they wanted, rather than the prerequisite feats, they would have no problem substituting other, more useful feats for the "feat tax". The fact that they are trying to get rid of prerequisite feats, rather than substitute more useful ones.

No, the primary goal of eliminating the so-called "feat tax" is to get the upper level feats at lower levels.

[ExLibrisMortis]

No, the primary goal of eliminating the so-called "feat tax" is to get the upper level feats at lower levels.
I may be reading something into your tone that isn't there, but you seem to disapprove.

You seem to be assuming that the feats that are currently only available at higher levels (due to prerequisites) are only balanced (not overpowered) at higher levels. That is not the case. Many feats are gated behind a lot of prerequisites and are nevertheless fine for low-level play, such as Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack, not to mention some of the crazier weapon style/martial art style feats. The goal of eliminating feat taxes is to make those feats available at the earliest level they are not overpowered at, rather than many levels later, thus letting those feats see more play.

[Aimeryan]

That is a meaningful requirement only if people could get Whirlwind Attack by level 3 with the feat prerequisites but no BAB requirement. That's simply untrue.

If people actually believed that the BAB requirements were keeping people away from the feats they wanted, rather than the prerequisite feats, they would have no problem substituting other, more useful feats for the "feat tax". The fact that they are trying to get rid of prerequisite feats, rather than substitute more useful ones.

No, the primary goal of eliminating the so-called "feat tax" is to get the upper level feats at lower levels.

I disagree; you can get a feat as soon as you get the BAB required if that is what you are going for - the "feat tax" feats don't stop you getting that feat, they stop you getting another feat you want as early as you could of got it.

For example, Shock Trooper: Pre-reqs of Improved Bullrush, Power Attack, BAB +6; you can get Shock Trooper by level 6 (or whenever you get BAB +6) pretty easy - Improved Bullrush and Power Attack are not stopping this. You would almost certainly want Power Attack anyway, but if you didn't have to take Improved Bullrush and you didn't have to take Combat Expertise you could get Improved Trip and still get Shock Trooper when you would have.

What removing a feat tax does is allow the build to have more real options at any one point, not any one option earlier. Personally, the idea of less one-trick-ponies sounds like a good idea.

[Jay R]

I may be reading something into your tone that isn't there, but you seem to disapprove.

I disapprove of arguing for one thing to get something else. The usual argument against prerequisite feats is that it requires the character to have useless feats. But they don't then suggest using different feats for the prereq; they suggest letting people take the feat earlier, without prereqs.

I don't like that approach. I have no problem with arguing for what you are actually after. But you need an argument that supports that.


You seem to be assuming that the feats that are currently only available at higher levels (due to prerequisites) are only balanced (not overpowered) at higher levels. That is not the case. Many feats are gated behind a lot of prerequisites and are nevertheless fine for low-level play, such as Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack, not to mention some of the crazier weapon style/martial art style feats. The goal of eliminating feat taxes is to make those feats available at the earliest level they are not overpowered at, rather than many levels later, thus letting those feats see more play.

Excellent! This is an argument for allowing (some) feats at a lower level, not an argument against useless feats that just happens to give feats at a lower level.

And I don't know the game well enough to have an opinion beyond the fact that, unless done carefully, it can really hurt the lower levels for others. I saw a game in which each player was allowed one feat, regardless of prereqs. The first level Fighter with Great Cleave took out all the goblins himself, on the first round. Obviously, that's a bad idea. For that reason, I would not allow low levels to take a feat that could provide a potentially unlimited number of strikes - like Whirlwind Attack. It would take a lot of careful thought (and more knowledge of this version than I have) to determine when each Feat should be allowed to come in.

But I have no problem with a straightforward argument for having feats at lower levels.

[Aimeryan]

And I don't know the game well enough to have an opinion beyond the fact that, unless done carefully, it can really hurt the lower levels for others. I saw a game in which each player was allowed one feat, regardless of prereqs. The first level Fighter with Great Cleave took out all the goblins himself, on the first round.

The problem there was not the lack of a feat pre-req but the lack of not needing +4 BAB.

[Flickerdart]

In my games, I grant a second feat progression that can only be used on terrible feats. These tend to be used for meeting prerequisites.

However, there's nothing easier than getting a ton of feats at level 1. Human, 2 flaws, cloistered cleric picking the right domains and devotions, that's 7 feats already and we're still at level 1 and not even doing any Chaos Shuffle shenanigans. Prerequisite feats are not a meaningful gate to abilities. They're just annoying busy work, boxes to check off before you're allowed to pick good stuff.

[Doctor Awkward]

I disapprove of arguing for one thing to get something else. The usual argument against prerequisite feats is that it requires the character to have useless feats. But they don't then suggest using different feats for the prereq; they suggest letting people take the feat earlier, without prereqs.

I don't like that approach. I have no problem with arguing for what you are actually after. But you need an argument that supports that.



Excellent! This is an argument for allowing (some) feats at a lower level, not an argument against useless feats that just happens to give feats at a lower level.

And I don't know the game well enough to have an opinion beyond the fact that, unless done carefully, it can really hurt the lower levels for others. I saw a game in which each player was allowed one feat, regardless of prereqs. The first level Fighter with Great Cleave took out all the goblins himself, on the first round. Obviously, that's a bad idea. For that reason, I would not allow low levels to take a feat that could provide a potentially unlimited number of strikes - like Whirlwind Attack. It would take a lot of careful thought (and more knowledge of this version than I have) to determine when each Feat should be allowed to come in.

But I have no problem with a straightforward argument for having feats at lower levels.

But what about the level 1 Wizard who takes out all of the goblins by himself in one round by casting sleep? Or the level 1 Sorcerer who does the same thing with color spray?

And in defense of the fighter in your scenario: So what if he takes out a ton of goblins in one round with Great Cleave? That's the intended function of the feat. It makes him feel like a badass, and it's one less scenario the wizard must try to prepare for, and allows him to prepare the spells he really wants. To give a similar scenario, you know how I responded when the warlock in my current game took the invocation last level that's let's him charm monster at will? I said, "Awesome. I never have to worry about preparing that spell again."

Additionally, Whirlwind Attack hardly allows for an unlimited number of strikes. It only functions on enemies you can reach. On a square grid that's eight enemies by being completely surrounded. If you have a reach weapon it's twenty enemies by being SUPER surrounded first. It's even less on a hex grid. And that doesn't even add up to half the maximum enemies that a wizard can catch in one fireball spell. And unlike the fighter, the wizard doesn't even have to roll to hit.

The point that most folks are trying to make is that the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. You cannot just say a Fighter with Great Cleave is at level 1 is bad because he could possibly kill a bunch of enemies by himself, because that's not the only situation the party might encounter. Great Cleave (and Whirlwind Attack) is useless against one big giant enemy with a ton of hit points. That's where a rogue shines. Unless the wizard, sorcerer or cleric has a spell, like blindness or glitterdust that makes the monster helpless and trivializes the encounter. But that just goes to the next point: in general magic users are better than non-magic users, and anything that bridges the gap between them can only be good.

[Flickerdart]

Additionally, Whirlwind Attack hardly allows for an unlimited number of strikes. It only functions on enemies you can reach. On a square grid that's eight enemies by being completely surrounded. If you have a reach weapon it's twenty enemies by being SUPER surrounded first.

If your party regularly got into the situation where the fighter was completely surrounded by 8-20 enemies, the need to take Whirlwind Attack would honestly be the least of your problems.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If your party regularly got into the situation where the fighter was completely surrounded by 8-20 enemies, the need to take Whirlwind Attack would honestly be the least of your problems.
You might also say: the quality of the enemies would be such, that practically any way to deal hit point damage would be sufficient, be it Great Cleave or Weapon Focus. After all, an enemy that cannot kill you in groups of eight is barely worth any CR at all.

[Flickerdart]

You might also say: the quality of the enemies would be such, that practically any way to deal hit point damage would be sufficient, be it Great Cleave or Weapon Focus. After all, an enemy that cannot kill you in groups of eight is barely worth any CR at all.

Indeed, one might wonder if the fighter would have anything to fear from these foes at all, and could not simply walk away and draw the AoOs.