Feat bloat

[paladinn]

Revisiting the issues about feats in 3e.. When we talk about "feat bloat", I know most people are referring to the overwhelming number of feats Available, and/or the complexity of the various feat chains and trees. But I'm thinking that the number of feats Gained are bloated as well. Every character gets 7 feats over their 20 level career. Do non-martial characters really need that? On top of that, fighters get 11 "bonus feats", and rogues potentially get 4 (as "special abilities"). Wizards get 4 "bonus feats" as well, presumably for metamagic?

I'm wanting to limit not only the feats available, but the feats gained, likely for both baseline and class feats. Perhaps it would be an option to substitute some static/class features for some of those feats? Is anyone familiar with something similar, in 3e or PF?

Thanks in advance!

[Doctor Despair]

Personally, I think the main reason to consider playing 3.5 instead of 5 is the customization it offers. Yes, there's a lot of feats, and a lot of feats gained, and a lot of choices for prestige classes and subsystems -- and characters can be more unique because of it. No two fighters have to feel samey in mechanics or fluff. It seems like your goal is to make characters more identical (i.e., substituting choices for static class features). I think you'd be doing yourself and your players a disservice.

[Particle_Man]

Perhaps have a look at 5e? They have fewer feats but more powerful ones relative to the base class features.

[Maat Mons]

A 20th-level Sorcerer knows, if memory serves, 34 spells, discounting cantrips. A sentiment I frequently hear is that it's just not enough, Sorcerers should get more spells known. I don't think you'll get much traction with the idea that 7 feats is too many choices to make.

To me, it seems the problem with feats is that most of them suck. If you put the Wizard spell list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 34 of them, it's easy to find that many they want. On the other hand, if you put the Fighter feat list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 11, it's hard to find anything that even seems to justify the effort of looking through them in the first place.

[Darg]

A 20th-level Sorcerer knows, if memory serves, 34 spells, discounting cantrips. A sentiment I frequently hear is that it's just not enough, Sorcerers should get more spells known. I don't think you'll get much traction with the idea that 7 feats is too many choices to make.

To me, it seems the problem with feats is that most of them suck. If you put the Wizard spell list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 34 of them, it's easy to find that many they want. On the other hand, if you put the Fighter feat list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 11, it's hard to find anything that even seems to justify the effort of looking through them in the first place.

I like the idea of chaining feats together into basically class feature progression when you use a feat slot. Take spring attack for example. At the level you pick that chain of feats you gain the benefit of dodge. Next level you gain the benefit of mobility, and when you gain +4 more BAB you gain the benefit of spring attack. I haven't gotten around to actually putting a list together or fleshing out rules to how it would work, but it is an idea that just feels like it would be fun, add more strategic thought between choices, make things more attractive without necessarily powering them up, and allow you to more freely customize how your character plays.

[pabelfly]

I'm not understanding the goal of your homebrew. It seems like you're worried about some feats being too powerful, and you also suggest that spellcasters don't need so many feats, but feats aren't really the cause of how powerful a spellcaster is, it's their spells.

If you think spellcasters are a problem for the games you want to run, but you don't want to switch systems to 5e or PF2e, you might consider running campaigns at a lower level range, or perhaps go with an E6 game setup instead. Alternatively, consider encouraging players switch to different spellcasting types which still have complexity, but are weaker than the regular Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer.

[paladinn]

I'm not understanding the goal of your homebrew. It seems like you're worried about some feats being too powerful, and you also suggest that spellcasters don't need so many feats, but feats aren't really the cause of how powerful a spellcaster is, it's their spells.

If you think spellcasters are a problem for the games you want to run, but you don't want to switch systems to 5e or PF2e, you might consider running campaigns at a lower and level, or perhaps go with an E6 game setup instead. Alternatively, consider encouraging players switch to different spellcasting types which still have complexity, but are weaker than the regular Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer.

I am familiar with PF and 5e. I will be weeding through the feat lists anyway. If something is too powerful, or if it's part of a needlessly-complex chain/tree, I will handle it.

I don't care for how in 5e, in order to get a feat, you have to sacrifice an ASI. I get why this is: feats are much more powerful in 5e. I actually prefer the smaller feats of 3e/PF. And I prefer them decoupled from ASI's.

I'm looking at the total number of "baseline" feats a character gets, as well as what fighters get (for example). I know that fighters get the most, as they should: it's their "thing." If they don't get all the feats, they need some class abilities to make up for it. But the 5e class abilities for the Champion, for example, pretty much suck.

I can sort of see why rogues get 4 "special ability feats": they are marital characters. I'd likely leave them alone. But they also get a bunch of class features. I am Seriously thinking to remove bonus feats from wizards: they are casters and don't Need feats.

If I limit baseline feats to L1, 6, 11 and 16, would that be too severe a "depowering"?

I'm thinking fighters would get feats at L1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. But then I'd like to add back a few class features to make up the difference.

So most classes would get the 4 baseline feats, rogues would get 8 total (if they choose feats for their special abilities) and fighters would get 11 total. IMO it's better than 18, especially if there are any class features.

Suggestions?

[pabelfly]

I am familiar with PF and 5e. I will be weeding through the feat lists anyway. If something is too powerful, or if it's part of a needlessly-complex chain/tree, I will handle it.

I don't care for how in 5e, in order to get a feat, you have to sacrifice an ASI. I get why this is: feats are much more powerful in 5e. I actually prefer the smaller feats of 3e/PF. And I prefer them decoupled from ASI's.

I'm looking at the total number of "baseline" feats a character gets, as well as what fighters get (for example). I know that fighters get the most, as they should: it's their "thing." If they don't get all the feats, they need some class abilities to make up for it. But the 5e class abilities for the Champion, for example, pretty much suck.

I can sort of see why rogues get 4 "special ability feats": they are marital characters. I'd likely leave them alone. But they also get a bunch of class features. I am Seriously thinking to remove bonus feats from wizards: they are casters and don't Need feats.

If I limit baseline feats to L1, 6, 11 and 16, would that be too severe a "depowering"?

I'm thinking fighters would get feats at L1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18. But then I'd like to add back a few class features to make up the difference.

So most classes would get the 4 baseline feats, rogues would get 8 total (if they choose feats for their special abilities) and fighters would get 11 total. IMO it's better than 18, especially if there are any class features.

Suggestions?

There are two parts to the question. The first one, should you ban feats that are overpowering? I'm sure most people do this, and I'm no exception. There's only a few feats that are extremely powerful, like Leadership and Item Familiar. This won't take long and you can typically nip these in the bud before a game starts. You won't have to do too much research for this.

The other, should you lessen the amount of feats a character or class gets? I'm not convinced. If you want to add class features to Fighter, look at how Pathfinder does it - they've got bonus feats like 3.5 and add in extra bonuses at what were dead levels for 3.5, like Armor Training, Weapon Training, etc. Fighter's weak enough as it is without hitting it with a nerf compared to classes that don't have bonus feats don't have to deal with.

[Elves]

The usual complaint is that characters get too few not too many. Keep in mind that 3e feats aren't 5e feats. They're simpler and less powerful. [Tactical] feats are more like a 5e feat, although most aren't that powerful despite the added complexity.

[paladinn]

There are two parts to the question. The first one, should you ban feats that are overpowering? I'm sure most people do this, and I'm no exception. There's only a few feats that are extremely powerful, like Leadership and Item Familiar. This won't take long and you can typically nip these in the bud before a game starts. You won't have to do too much research for this.

The other, should you lessen the amount of feats a character or class gets? I'm not convinced. If you want to add class features to Fighter, look at how Pathfinder does it - they've got bonus feats like 3.5 and add in extra bonuses at what were dead levels for 3.5, like Armor Training, Weapon Training, etc. Fighter's weak enough as it is without hitting it with a nerf compared to classes that don't have bonus feats don't have to deal with.

Actually I was going to "nerf" the baseline feats first. All characters would get feats at L1, 6, 11 and 16. Like I said, casters don't need 7 baseline feats.

What I'm proposing would still give fighters 7 bonus feats, plus a few class features. I'm not too worried about "dead levels"; that's a trope that influenced PF in a way that I'm not sure is good.

Thanks for the input, guys.. Keep it coming, please:)

[Particle_Man]

If you take bonus feats from wizards will that make prestige classes from wizard more likely?

[paladinn]

The usual complaint is that characters get too few not too many. Keep in mind that 3e feats aren't 5e feats. They're simpler and less powerful. [Tactical] feats are more like a 5e feat, although most aren't that powerful despite the added complexity.

As I mentioned above:

I don't care for how in 5e, in order to get a feat, you have to sacrifice an ASI. I get why this is: feats are much more powerful in 5e. I actually prefer the smaller feats of 3e/PF. And I prefer them decoupled from ASI's.

Fighters get a feat just about every level now; how many more should they get? I'd rather give a few class features; just not sure what that should look like. I am serious thinking to adapt the 5e Fighting Style feature for L1.

[paladinn]

If you take bonus feats from wizards will that make prestige classes from wizard more likely?

It'll be a slight nerf. If a wizard wants a metamagic feat, let them use a baseline feat.

[pabelfly]

It's a bit hard to comment further since, for example, you're basically trading four fighter feats for unspecified class and progression. Is that trade worth it? I have no idea.

Two more points I'll make: firstly, you're making feat-heavy combat styles - ie anything that's not two-handed power attack - much more difficult than previous.
Secondly, I still don't see the point of taking feats away from the player. If this goes as you've planned it, what happens with your game of 3e that doesn't happen in a game without your homebrew changes?

[Elves]

Why do you think characters have too many feats?

[pabelfly]

Why do you think characters have too many feats?

Id be interested in asking how much 3e OP has played.

[Crichton]

It seems like your goal is to make characters more identical (i.e., substituting choices for static class features). I think you'd be doing yourself and your players a disservice.


I don't think you'll get much traction with the idea that 7 feats is too many choices to make.

To me, it seems the problem with feats is that most of them suck. If you put the Wizard spell list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 34 of them, it's easy to find that many they want. On the other hand, if you put the Fighter feat list in front of someone, and ask them to pick 11, it's hard to find anything that even seems to justify the effort of looking through them in the first place.


The usual complaint is that characters get too few not too many. Keep in mind that 3e feats aren't 5e feats. They're simpler and less powerful. [Tactical] feats are more like a 5e feat, although most aren't that powerful despite the added complexity.


firstly, you're making feat-heavy combat styles - ie anything that's not two-handed power attack - much more difficult than previous.
Secondly, I still don't see the point of taking feats away from the player.


100% agree with all of these sentiments. I'm unclear on what your motivation here is, but what I've seen so far is only going to limit player choices and not really add/gain anything much. I agree that (for example) Fighter's should have more class feature choices, but just taking away some of their feats, and everyone else's too, doesn't seem to do much more than reduce player choice

[paladinn]

It's a bit hard to comment further since, for example, you're basically trading four fighter feats for unspecified class and progression. Is that trade worth it? I have no idea.

Two more points I'll make: firstly, you're making feat-heavy combat styles - ie anything that's not two-handed power attack - much more difficult than previous.
Secondly, I still don't see the point of taking feats away from the player. If this goes as you've planned it, what happens with your game of 3e that doesn't happen in a game without your homebrew changes?

Fighters get criticized in almost all editions because they are "boring": "I grab my weapon and attack!" In 3e, Everything about the class seems even more boring: "I leveled up! I get a feat." I think a few class abilities would help that some, while still allowing most of the flexibility of being a feat monkey.

Are there any other 5e features (2nd Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable or Improved/Superior Critical) that would be worth back-porting?

[paladinn]

100% agree with all of these sentiments. I'm unclear on what your motivation here is, but what I've seen so far is only going to limit player choices and not really add/gain anything much. I agree that (for example) Fighter's should have more class feature choices, but just taking away some of their feats, and everyone else's too, doesn't seem to do much more than reduce player choice

Ok, so what might you recommend in the way of class features?

My main thought in limiting baseline feats was to limit them for casters who, again, really don't need all that they get, IMO.

[DivineOnTheMind]

trees. But I'm thinking that the number of feats Gained are bloated as well.
They need MORE.

The reason I hang onto 3e is character customization, step by step, level by level. A level without a decision is a wasted opportunity. I hate middleground slop like 5e. The reason I want to play 3e is all the decision points, and if I replace 3e in my rpg cycle, it'll only be for a system that has even more.

[Maat Mons]

Under the current system, feats aren't strictly "nice to haves." For some characters, they're essential to functionality. Weapon Finesse is a particularly egregious example. I don't think it makes any sense to ask for opinions on how many feats players should get when we don't have any way of knowing how many feats builds will need. The details of how you overhaul the feats themselves will dictate how few feats you can get away with cutting the progression down to.

I don't think stripping class features away from spellcasters is going to improve the game. The class features weren't what was making them powerful, so getting rid of them isn't going to bring balance. What it will do is make those classes boring and flavorless. A class progression isn't just a vehicle for delivering power. It also serves to build out the concept of the class with fun and interesting abilities. It's possible for a class feature to majorly help in selling the theme of the class while giving essentially no benefit in terms of power. Most Monk class features fall into this category.

I think it's desirable for players to have a meaningful choice to make each time they level up. I know that, technically, which class to take a level in is a choice. But theoretically, single-classed characters are supposed to be viable. If someone's already decided to go straight whatever-class 20, they should still have other decisions to make when leveling up. And no, choosing to max the same skills you've been maxing all along doesn't cut it either. For spellcasters, which spells you learn can serve as that choice. but a lot of martial classes don't have any choices built in, at least not without loads of books to give alternative class feature options. For a lot of martial characters, which feat to pick is the only meaningful and engaging choice they get to make at any given level.

If you don't like how 5e makes you choose between feats and ability score increases, there are various homebrew around that eliminate ability scores. The idea is that ability scores will add a relatively predictable amount onto your rolls, increasing with level. So why not just roll those bonuses straight into the other numeric progressions? I mean, really, "add the bonus to your class' main stat" or "be a dumb-dumb" was never a real choice. So why pretend it is? You just get the numbers you need to have to be functional, with no option to play a Wizard with Int 8 and max Str. Your class already tells you what your areas of competence are. There's no need to have ability scores as another way to tell you the same thing.

Edit: Wow, 13 posts since I last refreshed the page. So some of what I just said here has been pretty thoroughly ninja-ed.

[pabelfly]

Fighters get criticized in almost all editions because they are "boring": "I grab my weapon and attack!" In 3e, Everything about the class seems even more boring: "I leveled up! I get a feat." I think a few class abilities would help that some, while still allowing most of the flexibility of being a feat monkey.

Are there any other 5e features (2nd Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable or Improved/Superior Critical) that would be worth back-porting?

But why would I want Improved Critical from 5e when it already exists in 3e, and in a superior form?

Genuine question, how long have you been playing 3e?

[Crichton]

Ok, so what might you recommend in the way of class features?

For whom? The Fighter? Honestly given your earlier response upthread I think you might be too stuck on trying to make the Fighter class more impressive. The answer to the Fighter being boring is to not play a straight singleclassed Fighter unless that's the playstyle you want for your character.
3.x offers the answer to the 'Fighters are too boring' problem not by improving the Fighter (sure it should be better), but instead by offering a frankly ludicrous amount of other options for you to choose from if the Fighter-as-printed isn't the playstyle you want for your character.


My main thought in limiting baseline feats was to limit them for casters who, again, really don't need all that they get, IMO.

Respectfully disagree, and again, why limit player choice? What are you hoping to accomplish by imposing your opinion on this matter on all your players?

[Crake]

If you want to cut back on feats, then I think its only fair that you make a lot of feats baseline. Anyone with 13 strength can power attack, anyone with 13 dex gets weapon finesse, anyone with 13 int gets combat expertise etc. you would need to SIGNIFICANTLY squish the feats down to make it worth it, bundle feats and their prerequisites into one, maybe two tops.

If you did that, then I could see some value to decreasing the number of feats people get, though I personally do all that and still leave the number of feats available as they are, because I like my players having fun, but niche abilities, and making the “standard” feats baseline allows players to take the more niche feats without feeling at a disadvantage.


Ok, so what might you recommend in the way of class features?

My main thought in limiting baseline feats was to limit them for casters who, again, really don't need all that they get, IMO.

Casters really gain very little of their power from feats, its like saying a cake is too sweet, so you’re going to remove the fruit garnish from the top.

[paladinn]

Wow, I really didn't expect the hostility. I'm sorry for sullying your forum with my inanity.

Thanks for the eye-opener.

[Crake]

Wow, I really didn't expect the hostility. I'm sorry for sullying your forum with my inanity.

Thanks for the eye-opener.

I don’t really think anyones being hostile, you definitely have a lot of opposition though, probably because most people feel that feats are too limited, rather than too abundant.

[Maat Mons]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't meaning any hostility. I actually quite like discussing how I think the game should be. Which is why I go on about it at length at any opportunity.

[Crichton]

Wow, I really didn't expect the hostility. I'm sorry for sullying your forum with my inanity.

Thanks for the eye-opener.

No hostility that I've seen here, friend. No one's angry, it just seems most of us disagree with the idea of reducing feats. I find that most of us who've stuck with 3.x as our edition of choice do so from a desire for an ocean of options and choices in character build. We want a huge crate of legos to build whatever we want from, not a shelf of pre-made toys to choose from. In that spirit, why remove legos from the box?

[pabelfly]

The fighter in 3.5 is good for two things:

The first is if you want a relatively simple character. Maybe you have a newbie in your group that you want to get used to moving and attack rolls and so forth before you throw them into the deep end. Maybe you don't want to deal with spells and psionics and tome of battle and whatnot and you just want to play a straight martial character for a change of pace.

The second is if you want to get a complex set of feats online for a character, especially if you want to do it early.

I actually like the Fighter myself and often use it when making my own characters.

As for any perceived hostility, I haven't intended any hostility on my part and haven't seen anyone else act hostile on here. I disagree with how you've assessed 3.5 and how you think to it needs to be fixed, but I'm happy to discuss it reasonably and make my point with logical arguments.

[Ignimortis]

Ok, so what might you recommend in the way of class features?


Mostly being a Warblade, really. The general idea of a class that says "I attack" during the most, if not all, rounds of combat should be a rare one, and probably restricted to a class that isn't as broad as Fighter. I.e. something like the Barbarian.

[Maat Mons]

Apropos of nothing, is the name PaladInn a reference to the AmericInn hotel chain?

[Zaile]

3e made sure you needed to use your feat slots on prerequisite" that are a feat tax for the better feats and prestige classes that make 3e so customizable.

Playng 3e with minimal optimization will require 3-5 feats that are solely for prerequisites for better feats and for prestige classes. So, you go from 7 to 2-3 to actually do nice things. Fighters need all the tactical options they can get, 3e does this via feats and a more robust prestige class, 5e by sub-classes and a better base class.

Metamagic and item creation have inherent taxes of higher-level slots and lots of downtime. Can't craft in the middle of a crawl and would you really put a tricked-out fireball in a 9th level slot, or just break the game with the 9th level spells?

Unless you abuse flaws and freely allow regional feats on any character (such as Greenbound), I think the number of feats is just right or even too few.

Pathfinder does it every odd level and reduced some of the feats needed in the chains.

One of the things I like about 5e is EVERYONE has feats people try to fit in such as dodge, spring attack and flyby attack. This eliminated 3-feat chains from 3e and I'm tempted to backwards-port that. Makes martial better in 3e and monsters MUCH more deadly. Dragon can now strafe and attack the archers and casters with full-attacks.

[Biggus]

I am Seriously thinking to remove bonus feats from wizards: they are casters and don't Need feats.


This seems like a reasonable idea, I've never understood why wizards get bonus feats and none of the other casters do. I have to agree with the others that reducing feats generally would make make the game less fun, not more though.



Are there any other 5e features (2nd Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable or Improved/Superior Critical) that would be worth back-porting?

I've imported Indomitable and a modified version of Superior Critical to 3.5. I also gave them Bravery and a modified version of Armour Training from PF as well. So far it seems to be working pretty well.

[Elves]

Wow, I really didn't expect the hostility. I'm sorry for sullying your forum with my inanity.

Thanks for the eye-opener.

You can definitely play without feats at all if you want a simpler system -- although it will have balance ramifications (martial characters tend to rely on feats to get impressive combos, while a lot of impressive combos remain for spellcasters with spells alone).

I'll even be a devil's advocate and point out that with 3e's rich multiclassing system, feats aren't as necessary to differentiate characters as they might be in a single-class system.


I'm not sure what the point of less feats is though. I think that's what people want you to explain.

[paladinn]

Mostly being a Warblade, really. The general idea of a class that says "I attack" during the most, if not all, rounds of combat should be a rare one, and probably restricted to a class that isn't as broad as Fighter. I.e. something like the Barbarian.

Anything that doesn't transform a campaign into a Wuxia movie?

[Ignimortis]

Anything that doesn't transform a campaign into a Wuxia movie?

Still Warblade. It doesn't have anything too spectacular unless you are severely opposed to people jumping 15-20 feet instead of 5-10. Swordsage has all the nifty semi-magical tricks, Warblade just has neat sword moves.

[gijoemike]

Wizards get metamagic feats to represent those years of study.

Sorc's have way more castings of spells and can do so on the fly. Wizards are more limited and must choose slot for slot every day.
Sorcs don't need materials as they get eschew mats at level 1. Wizards learn how to scribe scrolls.



I have always thought in 3.5 that there were not ENOUGH feats. Look at the feat chains from complete warrior and complete scoundrel. Some take weapon focus in 2 different weapon classes, then some other chain feat. That is 1/2 the feats a character will ever learn. I would vote leave all the bonus feats in place, move feat progression to every odd level like it is in PF. Then use flaws to gain more feats at 1st lvl.


Even fighter having 18 feats by lvl 20 isn't enough if they want to have Acrobat/Actor/etc + sill focus. A fighter can use 1 feat to become better at non-combat. Forcing them to use everything for a combat role just further forces them into a trap.

[Biggus]

Sorcs don't need materials as they get eschew mats at level 1.

Not in 3.5 they don't.

[paladinn]

Apropos of nothing, is the name PaladInn a reference to the AmericInn hotel chain?

Negative. I've always loved paladins and I needed a name

[paladinn]

You can definitely play without feats at all if you want a simpler system -- although it will have balance ramifications (martial characters tend to rely on feats to get impressive combos, while a lot of impressive combos remain for spellcasters with spells alone).

I'll even be a devil's advocate and point out that with 3e's rich multiclassing system, feats aren't as necessary to differentiate characters as they might be in a single-class system.


I'm not sure what the point of less feats is though. I think that's what people want you to explain.

A little more simplicity isn't a bad thing. I don't care for the 5e take on feats in general; but it's good that a player doesn't have to get entangle in the chargen metagame. The point is to actually play the game, not to spend all one's time in developing a build.

There should be a balance between 3e and 5e. And no, it's Not 4e

[Elves]

A little more simplicity isn't a bad thing. I don't care for the 5e take on feats in general; but it's good that a player doesn't have to get entangle in the chargen metagame. The point is to actually play the game, not to spend all one's time in developing a build.

3e is very much about the chargen metagame. The detailed character customization is the #1 reason people have for preferring it to 5e.

But there's no reason you have to play with meticulously planned builds. Time to choose a feat? Take a look and choose one that seems useful. That's it. No stress. A player can handle making a decision like that once every three levels (which is weeks or months of gameplay).

I actually agree with you that in some respects a happy medium of complexity might lie in between 3rd and 5th, but I don't think this is one of those respects. At the least, I can see a rationale for playing without feats at all, but I think reducing the number of feats reduces player power and player choice without actually making the system meaningfully simpler.

[JNAProductions]

3e is very much about the chargen metagame. The detailed character customization is the #1 reason people have for preferring it to 5e.

But there's no reason you have to play with meticulously planned builds. Time to choose a feat? Take a look and choose one that seems useful. That's it. No stress. A player can handle making a decision like that once every three levels (which is weeks or months of gameplay).

I actually agree with you that in some respects a happy medium of complexity might lie in between 3rd and 5th, but I don't think this is one of those respects. At the least, I can see a rationale for playing without feats at all, but I think reducing the number of feats reduces player power and player choice without actually making the system meaningfully simpler.

The more organic character-building can work for a Cleric or Druid, for instance-they will ALWAYS be able to be useful, given that they know their whole list. You could make a Cleric who takes nothing but Toughness and still be a good team member.
But would that still work well for a Fighter, or a Monk? I'd be inclined to say no-or at least, not particularly well.

[Ramza00]

Paladinn in your philosophy what is replacing "feats" as an advancement phenomena where you get something new at each level?

=====

In later 3.5 but more so in PF, 4th edition and 5th edition the concept of Dead Levels was acknowledge.

And a feat every 2 levels in PF, or every 3 levels in 3.5 is what is supposed to get rid of the Dead Levels phenomena so people feel like they gain something besides higher hit points, skills, and wealth by level.

[paladinn]

Paladinn in your philosophy what is replacing "feats" as an advancement phenomena where you get something new at each level?

=====

In later 3.5 but more so in PF, 4th edition and 5th edition the concept of Dead Levels was acknowledge.

And a feat every 2 levels in PF, or every 3 levels in 3.5 is what is supposed to get rid of the Dead Levels phenomena so people feel like they gain something besides higher hit points, skills, and wealth by level.

This is part of my point. Characters Do get things every level, even if it's hp, increased to-hit, etc. Because a given level doesn't show something new, it's called a "dead level", and it's really not. But people have been conditioned by video games to think that way.

Casters get new spells every level, and they are visible, so I don't think feats are (as) needed.

I'm an old-school grognard, so "dead levels" and getting something new and shiny every level isn't something I prize. I'm more interested in making sure martial characters, especially "plain" fighters, have enough abilities to be viable and fun without being overly complicated. It's a balancing act. My "sweet spot" would be something between 3e and 5e.

[RexDart]

I'm more interested in making sure martial characters, especially "plain" fighters, have enough abilities to be viable and fun without being overly complicated.

I think I'm with you on this part at least. Particularly if they're going to suck in many other ways (e.g. almost no skill points or class skills worth spending them on), Fighters should be masters of their particular domain, fighting stuff, the way wizards are masters of magic.

A wizard can potentially cast any arcane spell from any school - equally well, unless she chooses to specialize. But they invariably end up with "I hit him with my axe" every turn unless they specialize in something like tripping. Tripping, Disarm, Grapple, Sunder, etc.? The only way to be even passably good at any of those things is to specialize in them

[pabelfly]

This is part of my point. Characters Do get things every level, even if it's hp, increased to-hit, etc. Because a given level doesn't show something new, it's called a "dead level", and it's really not. But people have been conditioned by video games to think that way.

Casters get new spells every level, and they are visible, so I don't think feats are (as) needed.

I'm an old-school grognard, so "dead levels" and getting something new and shiny every level isn't something I prize. I'm more interested in making sure martial characters, especially "plain" fighters, have enough abilities to be viable and fun without being overly complicated. It's a balancing act. My "sweet spot" would be something between 3e and 5e.

Fighters and their feats don't have to be overly complicated though. It's quite easy to simply pick a small selection of combat-based abilities to create a build off of, and then use the rest of your feats to pick up static bonuses that you don't have to worry about once you've done your character maths - feats like Improved Initiative, Improved Toughness, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and so forth.

[Ramza00]

This is part of my point. Characters Do get things every level, even if it's hp, increased to-hit, etc. Because a given level doesn't show something new, it's called a "dead level", and it's really not. But people have been conditioned by video games to think that way.

Casters get new spells every level, and they are visible, so I don't think feats are (as) needed.

I'm an old-school grognard, so "dead levels" and getting something new and shiny every level isn't something I prize. I'm more interested in making sure martial characters, especially "plain" fighters, have enough abilities to be viable and fun without being overly complicated. It's a balancing act. My "sweet spot" would be something between 3e and 5e.

I do not think it is helpful to go back and forth which of us think we are the older gamers.

I used the word dead levels for that is what Kolja Raven Liquette on WotC’s website called them in 2006.

I do think they are important as a game design philosophy. One does not feel a personal investment, a form of owning as a PC, when your HP goes up +5 when you roll a d8. People do feel the owning of flair which what feats are, even if the concept of feat chains for mechanical benefit is locking you into flair you may not want yet feel forced into as a form of bad faith the mechanics requires.

So I repeat what would you replace it with? Or is your answer bab, saves, hit points, skills enough even if everyone has those same things?

[RandomPeasant]

Feats are good. The problem is that pre-reqs make feat management really annoying and you get few enough that it takes most of your career just to get the "main" ones for your desired build. Just let people grab whatever they want, and let them grab often enough to make it easy to get through what you need to what you want.

I also don't get how "get numbers instead of abilities" is supposed to be a non-video game thing. Having your numbers arbitrarily go up without getting anything new to do is exactly a video game thing. If you are +1 to your thing, but doing the exact same thing, you have not gained any meaningful progression. If you want characters to change more slowly, slow the rate at which you advance through levels, not the amount levels give you.


The more organic character-building can work for a Cleric or Druid, for instance-they will ALWAYS be able to be useful, given that they know their whole list. You could make a Cleric who takes nothing but Toughness and still be a good team member.
But would that still work well for a Fighter, or a Monk? I'd be inclined to say no-or at least, not particularly well.

Well, yes. That's an issue with those classes. People complain about casters all the time, but it is very much true that the ability to simply work is way better for the game than what you need to do to make the overwhelming majority of non-casters work. In this respect, things should be more like the Cleric and the Druid and less like the Fighter and the Monk.

[icefractal]

Here's the question - is this for a game that's going to start at high level, or one that's going to start from 1st and take a while to rise through the ranks?

In the first case, while I don't think seven feats is too much to pick, I don't think four would be terrible either, if feat chains were consolidated. You've got plenty of stuff going on.

In the latter case, every five levels is far too few. Heck, every three levels is too few - why do you think flaws are so popular? PF1 gives a feat every odd level, and that's sometimes insufficient when you're waiting many game sessions between any mechanical choices.

While it creates some weirdness fiction-wise, mechanically the 4E concept where past a certain point you're replacing old powers with the new ones you get (rather than keeping both) is a good one. Because there's no actual reason that the character complexity should keep increasing past, like, 3rd level. The first couple levels as "training wheels"? Sure. But once you're past that point, the character is being played by the same person with the same mental capacities whether they're 5th or 20th level, so a linear increase in complexity makes the former too simple and the latter too complex.

Although for that matter, different people have different desired amounts of complexity. Some players would be happy with a character who does the same thing most rounds, others would find that boring AF.

[Maat Mons]

I'm a big fan of getting "shiny things" every level. I'd go farther than most, and say that numeric advancement is illusory, and should be eliminated.

As you level up, in most games, you get bigger numbers. But these bigger numbers don't translate into succeeding more frequently. That's because the game (or DM) deliberately puts you up against tougher enemies that require those larger numbers.

It's a design goal of most games that player success rates will fall into proscribed ranges. If encounter design goes as planned, the characters of classes that are primarily focused on stabbing things will have success rates in their intended range, the characters of classes that have stabbing things as a secondary competence will have success rates in their proscribe range, et cetera.

It's kind of a big treadmill. You're always working for those bigger numbers. But the game (or DM) always moves the goalposts, so those numeric increases never actually let you become more powerful in the one meaningful way, relative to the challenges you face.

If the whole point of game design is that players never really get anywhere, that they always struggle just as much in late-game combats as they did in early-game combats, why have advancement at all?

The answer is that advancement is there to trigger a Pavlovian response. People see those numbers go up, and they feel happy. Somewhere, deep in their hindbrains, they se those bigger numbers and think "My character got better." But the only context in which any numbers matter is relative to other numbers. If the game (or DM) is deliberately working to cancel out all the nice big numbers you see with corresponding changes to the numbers you don't see (enemy stats), then you're always going to be right back where you started.

In this way, numeric advancement is a sort of cruel lie. "Woo, I got +1 to hit!" "Congratulations, because of that, I'm giving all the enemies +1 AC."

If my target numbers are always going to be increased to match the increases in my bonuses, I'd rather not bother updating my character sheet at all. A much easier way of ensuring players never start succeeding too much is just to never add to their bonuses at all. It cuts through a lot of needless complexity.

But if fiddling with numbers is just a gimmick to make players have that "Woo, new level!" moment without actually allowing anything to change, does that mean nothing can ever change? No, because there is another form of advancement, the true form of advancement, non-numeric advancement. These are abilities that change how the game feels, not just what numbers are added to die rolls.

If you suddenly get the ability to cast Plane Shift, the scope of your adventures increases. You don't just go from being a level 1 party protecting the old mill from a rag-tag band of level 1 goblins, to a level 5 party protecting the old mill from a rag-tag band of level 5 goblins. Your world opens up.

[RandomPeasant]

While it creates some weirdness fiction-wise, mechanically the 4E concept where past a certain point you're replacing old powers with the new ones you get (rather than keeping both) is a good one.

I think in the case of feats, it points more to the idea that feats should not be creating new capabilities. If your feats are bonuses to things you do, you can get one every level and it merely makes creating high level characters take slightly longer, not become nightmarishly more complex. And I don't think you're ever going to be able to really eliminate the time to create high level characters, especially if you keep things like Open Multiclassing.


As you level up, in most games, you get bigger numbers. But these bigger numbers don't translate into succeeding more frequently. That's because the game (or DM) deliberately puts you up against tougher enemies that require those larger numbers.

I would say that's a failure of DMing. Adventures should include some things that give you a chance to flex your numbers, like encounters with larger numbers of low-level enemies. That said, I do broadly agree that purely numeric advancement is unsatisfying.


If the whole point of game design is that players never really get anywhere, that they always struggle just as much in late-game combats as they did in early-game combats, why have advancement at all?

I would quibble with this slightly. It's entirely possible to have numeric advancement that shifts play patterns by having relative numbers change. You can see this to a degree in 3e, where low-level combat is highly lethal (you are rolling die + stat for damage against die + stat HP), but mid-level combat becomes less lethal (because you get die + stat HP at each level, but not as much damage scaling -- at least at low/mid optimization). To a point I think this is desirable. When I think of the kinds of stories I expect low level play to be like (gritty fantasy), they are not the same as what I expect from high level play (epic/heroic fantasy).


If my target numbers are always going to be increased to match the increases in my bonuses, I'd rather not bother updating my character sheet at all. A much easier way of ensuring players never start succeeding too much is just to never add to their bonuses at all. It cuts through a lot of needless complexity.

The problem with this is that you do want to be able to have higher level enemies. It is desirable to have high level enemies that you can expect to defeat after accruing power but not as a starting adventurer, and numeric increases are by far the easiest way to do that.

[Jay R]

Do non-martial characters really need that?

Absolutely. For most of my caster builds, I feel feat-starved early on. I need to choose feats that allow the Prestige Classes I want, and many metamagic feats are also extremely useful.

One of the limitations for casters in the early levels is the lack of feats.

Besides, there are some feats that are just fun to play with. My gnome illusionist has an Ancestral Relic. Yes, this means that he's behind on the Shadowcraft Mage build, but it's so fun that I chose to take it anyway.

[Crichton]

Do non-martial characters really need that?

so I don't think feats are (as) needed.

Yeah, still disagree, for the reasons below. You do you for your game, but I don't think I'd want to play at that table with those houserules



Absolutely. For most of my caster builds, I feel feat-starved early on. I need to choose feats that allow the Prestige Classes I want, and many metamagic feats are also extremely useful.

One of the limitations for casters in the early levels is the lack of feats.

Besides, there are some feats that are just fun to play with. My gnome illusionist has an Ancestral Relic. Yes, this means that he's behind on the Shadowcraft Mage build, but it's so fun that I chose to take it anyway.


Wholeheartedly agree. Between PrC prerequisites, metamagic, toss in some crafting feats maybe, stuff like you mention that's just fun to play around with, and you've already got some pretty heavy competition for your limited feat slots. And that's before you consider other things like maybe some Uncanny Forethought and its prerequisites, or any of the other fun ideas. Usually run out of feat slots before running out of desired feats. As someone above said, that's why flaws have become so popular!

[RandomPeasant]

In fairness, much of that is stuff that you could, or even should, reasonably change. PrC pre-reqs mostly serve to punish organic builds, which is the opposite of what PrCs were initially intended to accomplish. 3e's magic item system doesn't work terribly well, and it's easy to imagine an alternative where magic item creation feats don't exist in their current form. Similarly, metamagic could be folded into classes (though whether or not that's correct IMO depends on how your overall magic system looks compared to 3e). I think you could plausibly imagine a version of feats where one every couple of levels was enough to cover what you need. But I'm not convinced that really gets what people want out of feats. People like incremental amounts of customization. The ability to declare that your character is educated or familiar with the precepts of Pelorian faith or ambidextrous or whatever is good, and it's not clear to me how you accomplish that without something that looks a lot like feats, and probably something that is more common than feats are.

[Biggus]

I would say that's a failure of DMing. Adventures should include some things that give you a chance to flex your numbers, like encounters with larger numbers of low-level enemies.


I very much agree with this. When I DM I make sure to give a variety of opponents, including the chance to massacre a small army sometimes.

Also, how you describe encounters and set them up makes a big difference to how they feel. If the DM is doing their job properly, a battle against a demon prince on a bridge over a river of lava should feel much more climactic and cinematic than a scrap with a couple of goblins in a field, even if both of them just consist of hitting each other until one of you falls over. If you're only paying attention to the numbers part of the combat, you're missing most of the fun.