Limiting feats

[paladinn]

Developing my hybrid game, Heroes & Horrors. I’m trying to glean some of the best elements from all editions, from B/X to 5e. I like the feat concept in 3e moreso than the 5e model; but I think the number of feats gained, and the number of feats available, are over the top. I think fighters getting a feat Every Level (with bonus feats) is too much.

I see feats as a means of making up some of the gap between martial characters and casters. BECMI had “fighter combat options” like Smash, Parry and Disarm. 2e had Weapon Specialization. I would want to add Cleave. Not sure how much to open up to rogues/thieves or whether to allow them at all for casters.

What are some reasonable ways to control/limit feats?

[Rebel7284]

By having prerequisites to use them? For example, 3.5 has BAB which casters get slower. Of course, it rarely matters in 3.5 because feats are mostly weak while spells are amazing.

[Biggus]

I don't think the 3.5 base feat progression gives too many with only 7 by level 20, in fact most people I've played with seem to think it's too few if anything. Are you referring to PF when you mention Fighters getting a feat every level?

With the Fighter specifically, giving them less bonus feats and some actual class features would probably be a good way to go (I've pilfered PF and 5E for suitable class features in my games).

[Particle_Man]

Of course, it rarely matters in 3.5 because feats are mostly weak while spells are amazing.

Yeah I think that if a fighter had (via a very generous house rule) every pre-epic feat published by wotc that they met the prerequisites for, and a specialist wizard that traded away their class bonus feats and otherwise only took toughness for their other feats, were in the same party, then the wizard would still be tier 1 and the fighter would still be tier 4.

[Maat Mons]

I don't really understand why getting a new feat every level would be a problem. Casters get new spells every level. Why can't martials get to pick a new toy to play with just as often?

I don't think you should create any connection between feats an classes. The purpose of feats, in my view, is to be a class-independent way of customizing a character. If you want people to periodically get to pick a new ability, based on what class they take, why not just make those abilities a baked-in part of the class?

Before you get too carried away with controlling and limiting feats, how much are you controlling and limiting spellcasting? I'm not at all familiar with your homebrew, but 3.5 kind of had this double standard where, if you wanted to do something with magic, you just learn one spell, and you can do it. But if you want to do something without magic, you need to spend 5 different feats just to get that one thing, and the first 4 feats give insultingly-minor benefits.

When you're designing your feat system, you should consider what you want feats to be. Do they add new capabilities to the character? Or do they make numbers bigger? You can make feats do both, but be warned: if you put the choice between big numbers and more options in player hands, some will chose to make one-trick ponies with astronomical numbers, and some will chose to make swiss-army-knife characters with miniscule numbers. That can make balancing encounters very difficult. The former will decimate any encounter where their trick is applicable, but be useless when it's not. And the latter will use their extensive bag of tricks to circumvent most challenges, but will be torn to shreds if they ever get stuck in a straight-up fight.

[Aharon]

Yeah I think that if a fighter had (via a very generous house rule) every pre-epic feat published by wotc that they met the prerequisites for, and a specialist wizard that traded away their class bonus feats and otherwise only took toughness for their other feats, were in the same party, then the wizard would still be tier 1 and the fighter would still be tier 4.

While feats definitely are weaker than spells, the numbers do add up. Just to pick an example, this fighter could take all abberant feats (10, one of which can be taken 7 times) at first level, and gain
+2 bonus on Spot checks, +2 bonus on Grapple checks, +3 bonus on Search checks, +4 bonus on Escape Artist checks, +3 bonus on Climb checks, +4 bonus on Balance checks, +4 bonus on Swim checks.
+8 natural armor
2 waist tentacles that can make natural attacks
+2 to grapple checks
32 hit points
+5 feet reach
+4 fortitude saves against ingested poisons and diseases
fly speed (with average maneuverability) equal to one-half base land speed (usable in round increments with rest inbetween)
resistance to cold 5, immunity to altitude fatigue and altitude sickness.
+8 will save against mind-affecting
16 power points
Swim speed equal to land speed.
+8 racial bonus on Swim checks, the ability to take 10 on any Swim check, and the ability to use the run action while swimming.
waterbreathing

It will be a lot harder for the DM to challenge this abberation fighter than a first level wizard...
And that's just the aberration feats. The fighter would also have access to fiendish feats, essentia feats, psionic feats,...

[Particle_Man]

What about an 11th level wizard?

[Aharon]

What about an 11th level wizard?

That's a bit harder, but by then, the hypothetical fighter has hundreds of feats, among them access to maneuvers from Tome of Battle and the Essentia stuff. I think around that level, it might even out, with the wizard gaining the advantage later on.
(By this point, our fighter has discovered that his ancestors were not very choosy in their relationships, since he is aberrant with fiendish and fey heritage, which grants him stuff like teleport and dimension door).

[paladinn]

I'm definitely going to be limiting casters. I'm using the 5e spellcasting model, which allows more flexibility but also limits the craziness at higher levels.

If I limit fighters to the 7 "generic" feats gained, that might be sufficient. I think of the fighter combat options in BECMI, and weapon specialization in 2e. Casters should maybe have feats tied to replacing ASI's as in 5e. Not sure about rogues.

[StSword]

Isn't the common wisdom that the problem with martial types in comparison is spellcaster versatility? Isn't that the basis for the tier system?

So while a fighter is stuck beating monsters to death with a stick a spellcaster could potentially solve any problem?

I'm not sure that feats are the solution as opposed to something more radical.

Like say Of Monsters and Magic's FATE like stunt system.

Or doing something inspired by that third party Incantation product which suggested one takes them as generic rules adapted to appropriate skills, so say a game in which wizards cast rituals but the bard's magic music symphonies can do similar things and the fletcher fighter knows the secret technique to make his arrows out of lightning bolts and the rogue doctor is just so good at medicine she can bring back the dead just like Asclepius.

[paladinn]

Isn't the common wisdom that the problem with martial types in comparison is spellcaster versatility? Isn't that the basis for the tier system?

So while a fighter is stuck beating monsters to death with a stick a spellcaster could potentially solve any problem?

I'm not sure that feats are the solution as opposed to something more radical.

Like say Of Monsters and Magic's FATE like stunt system.

Or doing something inspired by that third party Incantation product which suggested one takes them as generic rules adapted to appropriate skills, so say a game in which wizards cast rituals but the bard's magic music symphonies can do similar things and the fletcher fighter knows the secret technique to make his arrows out of lightning bolts and the rogue doctor is just so good at medicine she can bring back the dead just like Asclepius.

Is the "tier system" something official? I know it is in 4e; not sure I've seen that referenced in 3x materials.

[Maat Mons]

No, it's unofficial, and doesn't mean the same thing "tier" means in some other editions.

There's an entire thread somewhere around here where people argue about which classes are in which tiers, and not everyone even agrees on what exactly the criteria for being in any given tier should be. But here's my take.



Tier 3: Your class choice determines your area of competence. A prime example is Beguiler. Being a Beguiler means you're the enchantment and illusion guy.

Tier 2: Your class choice doesn't determine your area of expertise. But other semi-permanent decisions do. A prime example is Sorcerer. You can build a Sorcerer to be the enchantment and illusion guy. Or you can Build a Sorcerer to be something else. But once you pick your spells, you're kind of stuck with them.

Tier 1: Your class choice doesn't determine your area of expertise. And neither does any other permanent decision. A prime example is Wizard. To be the enchantment and illusion guy, you prepare the relevant spells that day. When you want to do something, prepare different spells.



Tier 4: Your class doesn't give you an "area" of expertise. It gives you one trick. When your trick doesn't apply, it's unhappy times. A prime example is Barbarian. You hit things hard. If the situation doesn't call for hitting things, sit around and wait for a situation that does.

Tier 5: Your class doesn't, itself, even give you a single good trick. You're basically reliant on whatever you can cobble together from feats, skills, and equipment. A prime example is the Complete Warrior version of the Samurai.

Tier 6: Your class is Commoner. Or close enough that there's really no plausible way your might have thought you weren't going to suck.

[paladinn]

No, it's unofficial, and doesn't mean the same thing "tier" means in some other editions.

There's an entire thread somewhere around here where people argue about which classes are in which tiers, and not everyone even agrees on what exactly the criteria for being in any given tier should be. But here's my take.



Tier 3: Your class choice determines your area of competence. A prime example is Beguiler. Being a Beguiler means you're the enchantment and illusion guy.

Tier 2: Your class choice doesn't determine your area of expertise. But other semi-permanent decisions do. A prime example is Sorcerer. You can build a Sorcerer to be the enchantment and illusion guy. Or you can Build a Sorcerer to be something else. But once you pick your spells, you're kind of stuck with them.

Tier 1: Your class choice doesn't determine your area of expertise. And neither does any other permanent decision. A prime example is Wizard. To be the enchantment and illusion guy, you prepare the relevant spells that day. When you want to do something, prepare different spells.



Tier 4: Your class doesn't give you an "area" of expertise. It gives you one trick. When your trick doesn't apply, it's unhappy times. A prime example is Barbarian. You hit things hard. If the situation doesn't call for hitting things, sit around and wait for a situation that does.

Tier 5: Your class doesn't, itself, even give you a single good trick. You're basically reliant on whatever you can cobble together from feats, skills, and equipment. A prime example is the Complete Warrior version of the Samurai.

Tier 6: Your class is Commoner. Or close enough that there's really no plausible way your might have thought you weren't going to suck.

Thanks for clarifying. "Unofficial" = "Not my concern" Of course everything I'm doing is unofficial..lol

I hope to simplify both caster class power gains and martial feat accumulation. I think there's a happy medium for both.

[tyckspoon]

Yeah I think that if a fighter had (via a very generous house rule) every pre-epic feat published by wotc that they met the prerequisites for, and a specialist wizard that traded away their class bonus feats and otherwise only took toughness for their other feats, were in the same party, then the wizard would still be tier 1 and the fighter would still be tier 4.

A very very capable tier 4; there's an argument for 3. Largely due to the existence of so many 'get minor access to a more powerful sub-system' feats - in addition to all the fairly minor +numbers and 'learn to do a mostly irrelevant extra combat trick' feats, the Fighter With Every Feat also has soulmelds, some access to Binding, a selection of Tome of Battle Maneuvers, and anything else where Wizards created a whole class to do a thing but also had some 'and you can sort of do it too if you don't mind spending all your feats on it' feats.


If I limit fighters to the 7 "generic" feats gained, that might be sufficient. I think of the fighter combat options in BECMI, and weapon specialization in 2e. Casters should maybe have feats tied to replacing ASI's as in 5e. Not sure about rogues

You can't just say 'I want fewer feats' in a vacuum - the reason Fighters get so many feats (and in 3.5 are still commonly considered to not have enough) is that in 3.5 Feats are how you get the ability to Do Things. Even things that are part of the basic combat rules require Feats to make them really work - sure, you can trip somebody or try to knock somebody over in combat. You get attacked first because it causes an Attack of Opportunity, you get to roll off against stats that are comparable or probably better than yours for most monsters, and odds are you get to drop your weapon! Want to avoid all that nonsense and have it actually be a thing your 'skilled combatant' character might actually succeed at? Feats. Want your 'skilled combatant' to be good at *all* the 'move somebody around' maneuvers? More Feats! And you aren't even unusually good at them yet, you've just spent three to six Feats to make the game stop punishing you for trying to use them! Suddenly those seven Feats, total, that's it ever throughout your career.. does not seem like a very large number.

So if you want to reduce Feat numbers (without just punishing people for daring to choose the kinds of classes that are currently Feat-dependent in 3.5 design) you need to reduce the need to have so many Feats. There's a lot of ways to do that. You can make the basic combat rules less punishing toward trying to Do A Thing without having the matching enabling Feat. You can make individual Feats more impactful, so you no longer need five feats to be a Combat Maneuver Master, you just take Combat Maneuver Master. You can build the powers directly into the class progression, have your Fighters be innately good at things without leaning on the "here's a pile of Feats, build your own Fighter" thing 3.5 attempted.

[Maat Mons]

I think the tier system is a very useful lens to use to evaluate game design. Both when looking at pre-existing games, and when designing a new one.

For example, I'd argue that Tier 4, the one-trick-pony tier, shouldn't be allowed to exist in a game that also has classes that facilitate making versatile characters.

And I'd argue that Tier 1, the tier for classes that can reinvent themselves every single day, shouldn't be allowed to exist in a game that also has classes that are locked into having the same capabilities today as they had yesterday.

Basically, I think it should be a design goal of every class-based system that every class gives you tools that are useful in a wide variety of situations, and no one character can do everything. So no Fighters and Barbarians. And no Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. Only well-designed and balanced classes.

[paladinn]

So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

The thing is, 5e doesn't give any ability to just specialize in a given weapon. Fighting styles usually give a bonus to damage or a special feature, but not a simple +1 to hit. I want fighters specifically (and honestly, mostly "generic" fighters) to be able to specialize with one signature weapon.

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?

[JNAProductions]

So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

The thing is, 5e doesn't give any ability to just specialize in a given weapon. Fighting styles usually give a bonus to damage or a special feature, but not a simple +1 to hit. I want fighters specifically (and honestly, mostly "generic" fighters) to be able to specialize with one signature weapon.

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?

It really depends on what exactly you do.

[Seerow]

So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

The thing is, 5e doesn't give any ability to just specialize in a given weapon. Fighting styles usually give a bonus to damage or a special feature, but not a simple +1 to hit. I want fighters specifically (and honestly, mostly "generic" fighters) to be able to specialize with one signature weapon.

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?

If you want Feats to close the gap between Martials and Casters, then instead of trying to model off of 3e or 5e, actually design from the ground up for that purpose. Because 3e and 5e offer combat feats, utility feats, caster feats, skill feats, feats for every occasion and every class. And inevitably if you give casters feats plus spells, and martials just feats, martials will fall behind.


On the other hand, you could easily make Feats the "thing" martial characters get where casters get spells. So every martial class gets a feat feat progression. Probably standardized to 3 different progression (high/medium/low).

So you could have the Fighter (High feat progression, no casting progression), Ranger (Medium feat progression, low casting progression), and Swordmage (medium casting progression, low feat progression), Wizard (High casting progression, no feat progression).

Even with that much harsher trade off if you are making a feat a single distinct ability, it's going to be a hard balancing act. Say you do one feat as a spell level (so a Fighter ends up with 9 while a Swordmage has 4), how do you balance the Fighter's last feat against a Wizard gaining 9th level spells? You seem to want to avoid having tons of options so going full explosion of options would seem to be a no-go.


Also for what it's worth I'd recommend anyone with any level of progression getting 1 or more level feats up front for the option to pick a fighting style/weapon specialization. So a Swordmage isn't stuck waiting until 4th level to start two weapon fighting or whatever he plans to do. This may be part of or in addition to whatever normal progression you are looking at.

[paladinn]

If you want Feats to close the gap between Martials and Casters, then instead of trying to model off of 3e or 5e, actually design from the ground up for that purpose. Because 3e and 5e offer combat feats, utility feats, caster feats, skill feats, feats for every occasion and every class. And inevitably if you give casters feats plus spells, and martials just feats, martials will fall behind.


On the other hand, you could easily make Feats the "thing" martial characters get where casters get spells. So every martial class gets a feat feat progression. Probably standardized to 3 different progression (high/medium/low).

So you could have the Fighter (High feat progression, no casting progression), Ranger (Medium feat progression, low casting progression), and Swordmage (medium casting progression, low feat progression), Wizard (High casting progression, no feat progression).

Even with that much harsher trade off if you are making a feat a single distinct ability, it's going to be a hard balancing act. Say you do one feat as a spell level (so a Fighter ends up with 9 while a Swordmage has 4), how do you balance the Fighter's last feat against a Wizard gaining 9th level spells? You seem to want to avoid having tons of options so going full explosion of options would seem to be a no-go.


Also for what it's worth I'd recommend anyone with any level of progression getting 1 or more level feats up front for the option to pick a fighting style/weapon specialization. So a Swordmage isn't stuck waiting until 4th level to start two weapon fighting or whatever he plans to do. This may be part of or in addition to whatever normal progression you are looking at.

I'm actually considering doing exactly that: making feats the martial "thing". 1st level fighters would get some sort of weapon specialization or fighting style. I'm just pondering how often to give feats After that, or the power of said feats (micro "3x" feats vs. mega "5e" feats).

I want to have all characters start as one of the "main four" (fighter, thief/rogue, cleric, mage/wizard) with subclasses branching off about 3rd level. I want to keep casting to casters; paladins, rangers and bards would be spell-less.

I'm thinking of giving casters the 5e option of either an ASI or a feat every 4 levels. That way Gandalf can swing his sword. And clerics will be proficient in their deities' favored weapons.

Work in progress..

[mattie_p]

Have you considered that D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder might not be the best foundation for your new system? You may be better served with a game system that hews more closely to your vision.

[paladinn]

Have you considered that D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder might not be the best foundation for your new system? You may be better served with a game system that hews more closely to your vision.

You know, every forum I've posted on, someone says this same thing. "Well you don't want to play as written, so you can't play." I have found 3x more easily "tinkerable" than a lot of other systems.

If there were a system that "hews more closely", I'd likely be pursuing it. Sorry if that offends purists. B/X and 5e people tend to be the same way.

[mattie_p]

I'm not offended, nor am I suggesting you can't do what you desire to do. I was attempting to point out that there might be better starting points. I frankly don't have a suggestion on that front. The magnitude of changes necessary to balance it would be astounding. If I think of anything that might help I'll raise it. Good luck on your quest

[JNAProductions]

You know, every forum I've posted on, someone says this same thing. "Well you don't want to play as written, so you can't play." I have found 3x more easily "tinkerable" than a lot of other systems.

If there were a system that "hews more closely", I'd likely be pursuing it. Sorry if that offends purists. B/X and 5e people tend to be the same way.

That's not what was said. No one is saying you're wrong-just that you could have an easier time starting from a different base.

Relatedly, what other systems do you know? We could try giving some recommendations.

[sreservoir]

A very very capable tier 4; there's an argument for 3. Largely due to the existence of so many 'get minor access to a more powerful sub-system' feats - in addition to all the fairly minor +numbers and 'learn to do a mostly irrelevant extra combat trick' feats, the Fighter With Every Feat also has soulmelds, some access to Binding, a selection of Tome of Battle Maneuvers, and anything else where Wizards created a whole class to do a thing but also had some 'and you can sort of do it too if you don't mind spending all your feats on it' feats.

So one thing to watch out for is that a Fighter With Every Feat who can manage one trip to the Catalogues of Enlightenment (PlH 167) gets to, basically, cast a spell 1/day from each of two choices of domain (because Planar Touchstone and Touchstone are separate feats that don't lock each other out, thanks), six times total each. I mean okay, anyone can do that, but not just anyone has the feats to spare and all the tiny bonuses in the world (daily action boost action points! loads of luck rerolls! +huge from Chosen of Evil because that counts your [Vile] feats!) to just casually succeed DC 25 Intelligence checks and get on with their lives.

But anyway, even without that, you also have a surprisingly strong list of SLAs cribbed together from various featlines, including potentially a dragonmark list, the expanded lists from Dragonmarked, dimension door and SNA V (Fey Legacy, CMage 43) if nonlawful, teleport (Fiendish Legacy) if nongood, and every CArc SLA feat ensuring that you have useful things to do early on. This stuff is actually really solid up to ... I'd say 8th level or so, but I might be missing some stuff.

Also, since you have caster levels for all your SLAs, you get pretty much every item creation feat, including the cost reduction stuff (like -57% or -75% idk how they're supposed to stack), which you can't really use all that well unless you do the touchstone thing, but interestingly, it opens up some of the stuff that normally you only see as artificer gimmicks that wouldn't normally be worth taking all the feats for like Prophecy's Artifex, Prophecy's Hero + Wand Surge (+ Dragonmark Luck, since you get that too), maybe Reckless Wand Wielder and Double Wand Wielder.

It's easy to take a look at the feats a normal character takes and think this is the upper limit of what you can do with feats, but no, what you can get out of feats is harshly limited by the limited availability of generic feat slots. When you only get one every third level, sure, you don't want to start taking one at 1st level that does jack and has no real payoff until you're three feats deep into the line at 9th level, where it's like two things but they're 1/day and worse than the caster version at the cost of over half your generic feat selection. When there's no opportunity cost to it, what was supposed to be overly cautiously balanced with junk prereqs is an reasonably on-level feature that came with a few ribbons.

[Kitsuneymg]

So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

The thing is, 5e doesn't give any ability to just specialize in a given weapon. Fighting styles usually give a bonus to damage or a special feature, but not a simple +1 to hit. I want fighters specifically (and honestly, mostly "generic" fighters) to be able to specialize with one signature weapon.

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?

21 micro feats for martial characters is a system that has been done. It’s called spheres of might and is excellent. Based on pathfinder, but should be easy to port to 3.5. You get one of 3 progressions (and the conscript, but that’s a special case) of 1/2, 3/4, or 1/1 talents per level (plus a package of 4 at level 1) that are small talents that enable you to do specific things. From these talents, you build a fighting style that is yours. I suggest giving it a look and maybe reading some of the reviews of spheres of might on this forum.

Imo, I like SoM better than 5e style big feats. With big feats, there’s seldom enough of them to make character distinct based on feats alone. Also, you will inevitably make one or two like Lucky that are just better than other feats and everyone will take them or be behind the curve. With many little feats, having one or two that are better is less of an issue, because 22/24 are still different. That’s my $0.02

[paladinn]

That's not what was said. No one is saying you're wrong-just that you could have an easier time starting from a different base.

Relatedly, what other systems do you know? We could try giving some recommendations.

I am familiar with all editions of D&D and Pathfinder, and most of the clones/simulacra as well.

Like I said, I'm trying to come up with a game that uses the best (at least IMO) from all editions.

[Efrate]

From what you described it sounds like you want 5e mostly with a few more distinct abilities for people. Subclasses at 3, fighting styles at 1, etc. If you want a more versatile 5e, just do everyone gets ASI like 3.5, and add a feat progression to each class which varies. That way you get some distinct things ie feats, but no one falls behind too bad.

I also recommend feats either scale or get their goodies at once. So you do need to plan 4 feats and 12 levels until you get the thing you want. Either make a level or some such prereq and you get it then, or things scale. Combining all the 3.5 weapon focus, specialization, weapon mastery and the greater and superior versions, etc. into 1 feat that you get all the benefits at level X, Y, Z. So if you take it early you get scaling +1 to hit, +2 damage, +2 to hit, +4 damage, take 10 on an iterative, etc. Same for the archery line, the TWF line, etc. Combine all the do combat maneuver stuff into 1 feat, imp. trip, disarm, feint, bull rush, etc. You bonus scales but you are good at all of them and eventually they trigger free attacks on success.

Metamagic and crafting are more difficult if magic item creation is in pc hands, and non sorcerers get easy access to metamagic, bit it can still work. Craft X is all craft feats gotten at whatever levels, figure out what folks can craft and when and then you unlock ring at 12 staff at 9 or whatever. Metamagic is trickier, but a damage metamagic, a shaping metamagic, and a buff dc/spell pen metamagic line could exist. Basically take the highest level of you get to do this feat, and you get it and all its prereqs at levels.

Problem with 3.5 is there are 1000s of feats, few of which are do a cool new thing, most are + numbers or stuff that should be acheivable by anyone. Cool new abilities are mostly spells.

Spheres is definitely worth a look however, or possibly pf 2e.

[Quertus]

What are some reasonable ways to control/limit feats?


So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?


I'm actually considering doing exactly that: making feats the martial "thing". 1st level fighters would get some sort of weapon specialization or fighting style. I'm just pondering how often to give feats After that, or the power of said feats (micro "3x" feats vs. mega "5e" feats).

I want to have all characters start as one of the "main four" (fighter, thief/rogue, cleric, mage/wizard) with subclasses branching off about 3rd level. I want to keep casting to casters; paladins, rangers and bards would be spell-less.

I'm thinking of giving casters the 5e option of either an ASI or a feat every 4 levels. That way Gandalf can swing his sword. And clerics will be proficient in their deities' favored weapons.

Work in progress..

If paladins, rangers and bards are spell-less, what is their intended identity? And how do you intend to have that mechanically represented?

Warlocks are…? Psionics are…? Gishes are…? Monks are…? (to name a few of the most popular)

I'm not familiar with 5e - give an example or two of what 5e feats can do.

Personally, I want muggle feats to be *at least* as game-changing as spells. So things like Leadership, or my personal example homebrew "feats" of CPR (bring back the dead with a heal check) or Disabling Strike (poke beholders in the eyes to turn off their eye rays; same for other SU abilities of other creatures).

Personally, I don't really want to control / limit feats (EDIT: although limiting them by character level or "tier"(4e/5e nomenclature), or even by BAB may be appropriate for a given feat), so much as give muggles way more feats than Wizards, and make the feats good enough that muggles are at least as good as if not better than casters.

What do you want to do?

[StSword]

You know, every forum I've posted on, someone says this same thing. "Well you don't want to play as written, so you can't play." I have found 3x more easily "tinkerable" than a lot of other systems.

If there were a system that "hews more closely", I'd likely be pursuing it. Sorry if that offends purists. B/X and 5e people tend to be the same way.

It's not a matter of wrong, just working uphill.

I've seen d20 systems that do better at class balance, like the shareware Legend (https://www.hedra.group/legend), or the free to purchase Radiance (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/105102/Radiance-Players-Guide-A-Complete-Roleplaying-Game-in-the-Age-of-Electrotech) which make spells just class features and the other classes get their own toys to play with.

Or the FATE/OSR hybrid Monsters and Magic Roleplaying Game by Modiphius, available at drivethrurpg, which replaces feats and skills with FATE-like aspects, and a stunt and scale system where the martials can affect the world around them at exactly the same level as their spellcaster peers.

So yes it is absolutely possible to do better at balancing the classes.

Heck, Bad Axe Games' sadly out of print Grim Tales is a game where all the fantasy classes are replaced with full 20 level versions of the modern attribute based classes, for a lower powered grittier game where the players wish they had a cleric healbot after going up against a werewolf.

[Psyren]

Developing my hybrid game, Heroes & Horrors. I’m trying to glean some of the best elements from all editions, from B/X to 5e. I like the feat concept in 3e moreso than the 5e model; but I think the number of feats gained, and the number of feats available, are over the top. I think fighters getting a feat Every Level (with bonus feats) is too much.

I see feats as a means of making up some of the gap between martial characters and casters. BECMI had “fighter combat options” like Smash, Parry and Disarm. 2e had Weapon Specialization. I would want to add Cleave. Not sure how much to open up to rogues/thieves or whether to allow them at all for casters.

What are some reasonable ways to control/limit feats?

1) you're thinking of PF when you say fighters get a feat every level, not 3.5

2) if you want feats to be truly impactful, consider consolidating and eliminating some of the minor ones. For example, someone who wants to be good at grappling (in either edition) needs to dedicate anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their total build to do so, and this effect is pronounced at low levels. Consider the feat tax eliminations found in my sig.

[StSword]

1) you're thinking of PF when you say fighters get a feat every level, not 3.5

2) if you want feats to be truly impactful, consider consolidating and eliminating some of the minor ones. For example, someone who wants to be good at grappling (in either edition) needs to dedicate anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their total build to do so, and this effect is pronounced at low levels. Consider the feat tax eliminations found in my sig.

Myself, I'm fond of the scaling feats some third party publishers put out, so that instead of players resenting feat taxes, they can look forward to the feats they buy becoming more powerful as they level up.

[Psyren]

Myself, I'm fond of the scaling feats some third party publishers put out, so that instead of players resenting feat taxes, they can look forward to the feats they buy becoming more powerful as they level up.

Yeah I'm a big fan of scaling feats as well. The feat tax consolidation we use does combine Improved/Greater/Rapid X into one scaling feat for combat maneuvers, and then further combines the brute-force-based ones (like grapple, bull rush, and sunder) into one called Powerful Maneuvers, while combining the more finesse-y ones (like trip, disarm, feint, dirty trick) into another called Deft Maneuvers.

[paladinn]

1) you're thinking of PF when you say fighters get a feat every level, not 3.5

2) if you want feats to be truly impactful, consider consolidating and eliminating some of the minor ones. For example, someone who wants to be good at grappling (in either edition) needs to dedicate anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their total build to do so, and this effect is pronounced at low levels. Consider the feat tax eliminations found in my sig.

1. You're right, I was thinking PF; but still, even in 3x, fighters get a lot of feats.

2. When I'm thinking feats, I'm thinking of one Weapon Focus-type feat that would grant a +1 bonus to hit and maybe to damage. This could be taken multiple times. A non-fighter-type could take it Once to get basic proficiency; but fighter could take it up to 3 times to get a total +3.

Beyond that, I'd want to replicate the "fighter combat options" from BECMI for things like Smash (i.e. Power Attack), Feint, Parry and Disarm, and I would add Cleave. Would need some feats for missile-fighters as well. I don't want to have a ton of micro-feats. If a fighter would get 7 or so feats during his/her career, they should be substantial.

[Kitsuneymg]

1. You're right, I was thinking PF; but still, even in 3x, fighters get a lot of feats.

2. When I'm thinking feats, I'm thinking of one Weapon Focus-type feat that would grant a +1 bonus to hit and maybe to damage. This could be taken multiple times. A non-fighter-type could take it Once to get basic proficiency; but fighter could take it up to 3 times to get a total +3.

Beyond that, I'd want to replicate the "fighter combat options" from BECMI for things like Smash (i.e. Power Attack), Feint, Parry and Disarm, and I would add Cleave. Would need some feats for missile-fighters as well. I don't want to have a ton of micro-feats. If a fighter would get 7 or so feats during his/her career, they should be substantial.

+1 to hit and damage is a micro feat.

[Seerow]

1. You're right, I was thinking PF; but still, even in 3x, fighters get a lot of feats.

2. When I'm thinking feats, I'm thinking of one Weapon Focus-type feat that would grant a +1 bonus to hit and maybe to damage. This could be taken multiple times. A non-fighter-type could take it Once to get basic proficiency; but fighter could take it up to 3 times to get a total +3.

Beyond that, I'd want to replicate the "fighter combat options" from BECMI for things like Smash (i.e. Power Attack), Feint, Parry and Disarm, and I would add Cleave. Would need some feats for missile-fighters as well. I don't want to have a ton of micro-feats. If a fighter would get 7 or so feats during his/her career, they should be substantial.

This sounds a lot like a system where you just don't want players to play fighters. Have you considered just building a system without fighters?

Seriously you just described a fighter using half half the resources he will get across his entire career for +3 to hit and damage.

That makes 5e look generous

[JNAProductions]

1. You're right, I was thinking PF; but still, even in 3x, fighters get a lot of feats.

2. When I'm thinking feats, I'm thinking of one Weapon Focus-type feat that would grant a +1 bonus to hit and maybe to damage. This could be taken multiple times. A non-fighter-type could take it Once to get basic proficiency; but fighter could take it up to 3 times to get a total +3.

Beyond that, I'd want to replicate the "fighter combat options" from BECMI for things like Smash (i.e. Power Attack), Feint, Parry and Disarm, and I would add Cleave. Would need some feats for missile-fighters as well. I don't want to have a ton of micro-feats. If a fighter would get 7 or so feats during his/her career, they should be substantial.

+1 to-hit and damage is not a substantial feat.

That’s similar in power to a 1st level spell.

[paladinn]

+1 to-hit and damage is not a substantial feat.

That’s similar in power to a 1st level spell.

Ok, so what would be an appropriately-substantial feat?

There is a feat called Weapon Master that grants "basic" proficiency with 4 weapons. Obviously that is only good for a character who is non-proficient with said weapons. If the feat is modified for proficient characters, it could grant a bonus. But what would justify sacrificing an ASI but not OP?

[JNAProductions]

Ok, so what would be an appropriately-substantial feat?

There is a feat called Weapon Master that grants "basic" proficiency with 4 weapons. Obviously that is only good for a character who is non-proficient with said weapons. If the feat is modified for proficient characters, it could grant a bonus. But what would justify sacrificing an ASI but not OP?

Weapon Master is generally regarded as a garbage feat, in 5E.

And the numbers in 5E are MUCH smaller than in 3.5.

A 3rd level PC in 3.5 can do 2d6+6 damage with +9 to-hit. Just needs 18 Strength, Weapon Focus (Greatsword) and a Masterwork blade.
A 12th level PC in 5E does 2d6+5 with +9 to-hit with a greatsword and 20 Strength.

[RandomPeasant]

Ok, so what would be an appropriately-substantial feat?

"THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

How good a feat should be depends on how many feats you get. If you get very few feats, each one needs to be large and important (like DMM or Leadership). If you get a large number of feats, each one can be smaller and less impactful (like Educated or Track). How feats are distributed also matters. In 3e, the Fighter gets feats in lieu of class features, which means that for the Fighter to be balanced with other classes, feats need to be about as good as class features (this is where you point out that this does not hold). In 4e the Fighter doesn't work like that, so you could dial up or down the power of feats as much as you wanted without messing with class balance.

[quinron]

So if the number of feats is limited, maybe the feats need to be more substantial, like in 5e?

The thing is, 5e doesn't give any ability to just specialize in a given weapon. Fighting styles usually give a bonus to damage or a special feature, but not a simple +1 to hit. I want fighters specifically (and honestly, mostly "generic" fighters) to be able to specialize with one signature weapon.

Would 7 mega feats be better than 21 microfeats?

The problem with weapon specialization is that it's exactly the sort of thing that can push a character from low tier 3 into tier 4. If, say, you've invested a lot of feats into wielding a greatsword and then lose your greatsword in the middle of a fight, you're going to be all but useless. If you're interested in making weapon specialization a major thing, I'd recommend you remedy this with the feats you create.

The easiest way to do this would probably be to just give 2 or 3 weapon specializations instead of only one and allow those specializations to be diversified rather than having them grouped into categories based on similarities the way Pathfinder does. After all, it makes sense that a longsword wielder's skills would more naturally transfer to a bastard sword than a bow, but if you were allowed to pick 2 from "longsword, bastard sword, bow," you'd definitely get more utility out of picking "bow" for one of those options.

[Psyren]

Ok, so what would be an appropriately-substantial feat?

Something that scales. For example:

Trip Specialist: You are skilled at sending opponents to the ground.

Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a trip combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe, or to defend against opponents trying to trip you.

When your base attack bonus becomes +6 or higher, you receive an additional +2 bonus on these checks. In addition, whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity. Whenever an opponent attempts to trip you and fails, you can attempt to trip that opponent as an immediate action.

When your base attack bonus becomes +9 or higher, you can also attempt to trip opponents who successfully trip you as an immediate action.

[Maat Mons]

I'm not a big fan of abilities that have limited scope, like Favored Enemy or Weapon Focus. But if you do want a mechanic that allows a character to specialize is a weapon, maybe try overlapping broad-ish abilities.

So, for example, if you want to build a character that lore-wise is a master of the falchion, and you want the game mechanics to support the notion that he does best with falchions, you could give him an ability that benefits two-handed weapons, an ability that benefits slashing weapons, and an ability that benefits high-crit-rate weapons.

At least then, if he's disarmed an has to use a weapon he scavenged on short notice, there's a decent chance that some of his skills will be applicable to the temporary weapon.

Note also that, whatever the benefits of these weapon-category-specific abilities are, they don't just have to be adding a numerical bonus to something.

For the ability that benefits high-crit-rate weapons, you could have something trigger each time you score a critical hit (or maybe even just a critical threat), and as long as whatever happens whenever the ability triggers doesn't care about how much damage the critical hit does, it will be better to use it with high-crit-rate, low-crit-damage weapons than to use it with low-crit-rate, high-crit-damage weapons.

[Thane of Fife]

Ok, so what would be an appropriately-substantial feat?

In the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia, a character who spends three "weapon choices" (beyond merely learning the weapon) on a battle axe gets:
+6 or +4 to hit, depending on how their opponent is armed,
the ability to throw their axe,
+8 or +6 damage, depending on opponent,
a 3-point bonus to their armor class,
every opponent struck must save or lose initiative next round,
and every opponent struck must also save or be stunned, unable to attack or cast spells until they pass another saving throw.

In AD&D 2e, by default, you can only specialize once. But if we add in the Combat & Tactics book, the equivalent becomes:
+3 to hit vs all opponents,
+3 to damage vs all opponents,
an extra attack every other round,
your crit range extends from 18-20 (hit by five) to 16-20 (hit by five).

Both of these are from games where enemies have significantly fewer hit points than in 3e.

If your intention is to use feats to balance martial vs caster classes, then part of how strong they are should relate to how big that divide is, but unless you significantly alter the D&D combat system (as it is used in AD&D, BECMI, and 3e, at least) or plan to give out lots of tiny feats, I don't think +1 to hit and damage is going to be worth a feat.

[Particle_Man]

Actually now I am curious:

If a fighter with absolutely every wotc feat is competitive with a wizard with no bonus feats and only toughness (repeated) as feats until about 11th level, what about a fighter with absolutely every "combat" wotc feat (but no non-combat feats, even in non-combat feat slots, except those necessary as prerequisites for combat feats)? At what level does a wizard with no bonus feats and only toughness (repeated) as feats surpass them?

[paladinn]

Would there be a problem with modifying Weapon Focus to impart both a +1 to hit and to damage? The weapon in question would have to already be a proficiency. Then allow a fighter to take the feat a max of 3 times, for a total of +3 to hit and damage.

I'm thinking that fighter-types would benefit from a 1st level "fighting style" ala 5e.

[RandomPeasant]

Would there be a problem with modifying Weapon Focus to impart both a +1 to hit and to damage? The weapon in question would have to already be a proficiency. Then allow a fighter to take the feat a max of 3 times, for a total of +3 to hit and damage.

I'm thinking that fighter-types would benefit from a 1st level "fighting style" ala 5e.

Again, what are you trying to do? I certainly have trouble imagining a D&D-based game where a +1 bonus is a thing I'm excited about, but asking "what if I had an ability that tweaked math like this" is a question that is essentially impossible to answer without looking at the underlying math. How many feats do people get? How tight is the RNG? Are HP numbers like AD&D, 3e, 4e, or 5e? What other feats could someone take instead? Without information like that, your question can only be answered in the broadest generalities, and those generalities have been sketched out pretty well: encouraging characters to specialize in a single weapon tends to create narrow characters that are very vulnerable to situations where their weapon is useless either explicitly (because it is disarmed or sundered) or implicitly (because it is a melee weapon and they are fighting horse archers). There's also the problem of treasure. If you get a +3 with broadswords, and non-broadsword weapon with a bonus that beats your best broadsword's bonus by 3 or less is pointless, and one that beats it by 4 or more negates a bunch of your abilities.

Ultimately, I would ask you why you want "weapon specialist" to be a protected role, especially if it's going to be defined in terms of numeric bonuses (which tend to be the least interesting form of ability). In fantasy, relatively few characters are "longsword specialists" or "longbow specialists" to any terribly significant degree. Generally, if someone specializes in a particular weapon it's because that weapon is really awesome, not because that happens to be the most impressive weapon that matched their spec.