Rule Variant: Feat Points

[SirNibbles]

Unlike skills, feats are not bought with points. A player simply chooses them for his or her character.

Player's Handbook, page 87


Why not buy feats with points? Why not assign a point value for every feat, between 1 and 3 (with better feats costing 3 points and bad feats costing 1 point), and then give players 3 feat points at 1st level and every 3rd level?

Pros: This would make suboptimal feat choices better and mitigate feat taxes. Taking good feats is no more expensive than before.

Cons: You have to assign values to every single feat.

Has anyone tried or heard of anything similar? Thoughts in general?

[Biggus]

Have a look at this:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System

EDIT: and here's a link to the original post, since it's been taken down now:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130820000414/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

[SirNibbles]

Have a look at this:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System

EDIT: and here's a link to the original post, since it's been taken down now:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130820000414/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

Thanks. Googling '3.5 feat points' didn't yield anything, so I'm glad you had this knowledge.

[Troacctid]

It's a hell of a con.

[Biggus]

It's a hell of a con.

Well, not necessarily. You don't have to do all 2000+ feats in advance, the DM can just assign a value to feats as they're used. It just means players need to let the DM know a little while in advance if they're interested in taking non-core feats so s/he has time to have a proper look at them and assign a value.

[redking]

The problem is many feats are situationally powerful depending on character build and interactions. I've got nothing against this variant rule, but the work in implementing it will be heavy. Perhaps using an AI finetuned on 3.5e might streamlines the process in assigning point values to the feats.

[Bohandas]

you could combine the feat system with the skill system. The open minded feat already allows you to purchase 5 skill points for one feat so why not just let that work both ways

[Kalkra]

This is kinda the basis of the Eclipse system, at least in part. Eclipse takes it further by merging class features with feats.

[Maat Mons]

If you buy a 2-point feat, do you have to spend your remaining point on a 1-point feat, or can you save it so you can buy 2 2-point feats 3 levels from now?

[SirNibbles]

If you buy a 2-point feat, do you have to spend your remaining point on a 1-point feat, or can you save it so you can buy 2 2-point feats 3 levels from now?

In Sean Reynold's system, saving points is allowed (and practically necessary with most feats costing around 8 points and only getting 10 per level). I am not a fan of saving points for later and would prefer all points be required to be spent immediately. After all, since no feats cost more than you get in a level, you are already getting either the same feats or more than you would before.

[Aquillion]

Keep in mind that many weak feats are used as "feat taxes"; making them cheap could have unintended consequences, especially when it comes to PRCs that are balanced around those feat taxes.

Of course, it's not like 3.5e is particularly... balanced in the first place. But it's something to keep in mind.

[bekeleven]

I attempted to identify and fix the shortcomings with SKR's feat points system. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637095-Feat-Points-The-Resurrection) I think there's really something there.

Specifically: Not all feats are created equal. And assigning points to feats is much less work than rewriting every feat. It also gives a lot more space to create new feats without worrying about having to balance them all against the best the system has to offer. All in all, a reasonably implemented feat points system can increase diversity of build options. It's more complex than vanilla "feat slot" systems, obviously, since it's introducing a new resource and everything. And that might be a reason to not use it during your first 3.5 campaign. But, in my estimation, it's simple enough to use it during your second 3.5 campaign.

[RNightstalker]

Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 2 had a point system for feats that could be a good place to start as the dark alliance series was based on 3rd edition.

[False God]

you could combine the feat system with the skill system. The open minded feat already allows you to purchase 5 skill points for one feat so why not just let that work both ways

From my own attempts at a "feat point" system, I second this approach.

3.5's feats are notoriously imbalanced and many only exist as a tax towards an actually useful feat.

Rather than implementing a whole new point system, using skill points to buy feats at a fixed rate is IMO a simple and easy to implement and more importantly, easy to understand system.

[Darg]

Keep in mind that many weak feats are used as "feat taxes"; making them cheap could have unintended consequences, especially when it comes to PRCs that are balanced around those feat taxes.

Of course, it's not like 3.5e is particularly... balanced in the first place. But it's something to keep in mind.

In regards to PRCs, you're supposed to tailor them to your campaign anyways. So really it's just a little extra work to what was already supposed to be done anyways.

[bekeleven]

From my own attempts at a "feat point" system, I second this approach.

3.5's feats are notoriously imbalanced and many only exist as a tax towards an actually useful feat.

Rather than implementing a whole new point system, using skill points to buy feats at a fixed rate is IMO a simple and easy to implement and more importantly, easy to understand system.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You're saying feats are imbalanced (Meaning, not worth the same amount as each other, I assume) and your solution is to price "feats at a fixed rate?"

[Mordante]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You're saying feats are imbalanced (Meaning, not worth the same amount as each other, I assume) and your solution is to price "feats at a fixed rate?"

It could be that a crappy feat is required to gain access to a powerful PRC. Making the the feat tax to easy might lead to more OP characters. I remember there is a PrC where skill focus (knowledge) is required. Skill focus is a bad feat but the PrC is pretty good.

[False God]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You're saying feats are imbalanced (Meaning, not worth the same amount as each other, I assume) and your solution is to price "feats at a fixed rate?"

Yes, because there are thousands of feats in 3.5, Pathfinder and 3rd party splat material a given table may be playing with. There's also further contextual balance issues to be considered, as some feats are more/less valuable in core-only, in "no dragon mag", or "no 3rd party" or "anything goes!" games.

It would take an ungodly amount of hours to appropriately balance every single feat even for a single table, or a single game where there might be additional homebrew rules limiting, altering or adding to this content. Not to mention, DM bias towards certain abilities they feel are more or less potent due to personal experience is naturally going to weight the assignment of point-values to feats.

So for the sake of simplicity, avoiding bias and ease of communicating a new change to the system, I support a flat cost.

[bekeleven]

It could be that a crappy feat is required to gain access to a powerful PRC. Making the the feat tax to easy might lead to more OP characters. I remember there is a PrC where skill focus (knowledge) is required. Skill focus is a bad feat but the PrC is pretty good.I would posit that changing resource costs of things in D&D at random would have a 55% chance of making the system more balanced. There are reasons to not like feat points, but saying you don't want to make any changes to the current system because you're afraid of unbalancing something is just trolley probleming your way out of running over 1 balanced prestige class to save 10 from the graveyard of unplayability.

I'm good at metaphors


Yes, because there are thousands of feats in 3.5, Pathfinder and 3rd party splat material a given table may be playing with. There's also further contextual balance issues to be considered, as some feats are more/less valuable in core-only, in "no dragon mag", or "no 3rd party" or "anything goes!" games.

It would take an ungodly amount of hours to appropriately balance every single feat even for a single table, or a single game where there might be additional homebrew rules limiting, altering or adding to this content. Not to mention, DM bias towards certain abilities they feel are more or less potent due to personal experience is naturally going to weight the assignment of point-values to feats.

So for the sake of simplicity, avoiding bias and ease of communicating a new change to the system, I support a flat cost.While this does involve both feats and points, it's not really related to the original SKR system or this thread's OP, both of which are about balancing feat values using a resource.

I rated the 382 feats in the SRD. Took me part of a weekend. Later someone messaged me about some feats in other books and I reviewed and rated them. If I were running a game, I don't think it would be hard for someone to say "Hey, I'm thinking of taking Cougar's Vision" and for me to say "Hey, that thing sucks, you can have it for as close to free as this framework allows."

To rephrase:

I agree that no power ranking will be true-to-game in all circumstances, but that's also true of the flat rankings we get by default. If somebody's willing to take responsibility to rejigger it, it's still a lot less work than rewriting every feat to be balanced against each other. And if you're doing it for your own campaign, you're pretty likely to get ratings that match your houserules, encounter design, and other sensibilities in there. My ratings will obviously reflect my own biases and DMing style, but most of us play more similarly than differently, at least to the point of comparing Extend Spell with Deft Hands.

[False God]

While this does involve both feats and points, it's not really related to the original SKR system or this thread's OP, both of which are about balancing feat values using a resource.
I don't think assigning a simplistic value of 1-3 "bad feat" "okay feat" or "good feat" is any more balancing than assigning a flat point value to all feats. If the worst a feat can be is 1 point, and the best is 3, why not make every feat 2 points and split the difference? If the proposed point system isn't going to meaningfully value the feats, then there isn't any point in having a "system".

I am completely unfamiliar with the SKR system, which is why I responded to Bohandas' post about using skill points instead of a new set of "feat points" and not your post about the SKR system.


I rated the 382 feats in the SRD. Took me part of a weekend. Later someone messaged me about some feats in other books and I reviewed and rated them. If I were running a game, I don't think it would be hard for someone to say "Hey, I'm thinking of taking Cougar's Vision" and for me to say "Hey, that thing sucks, you can have it for as close to free as this framework allows."

To rephrase:

I agree that no power ranking will be true-to-game in all circumstances, but that's also true of the flat rankings we get by default. If somebody's willing to take responsibility to rejigger it, it's still a lot less work than rewriting every feat to be balanced against each other. And if you're doing it for your own campaign, you're pretty likely to get ratings that match your houserules, encounter design, and other sensibilities in there. My ratings will obviously reflect my own biases and DMing style, but most of us play more similarly than differently, at least to the point of comparing Extend Spell with Deft Hands.
I get what you're saying, but I don't personally find every feat getting a unique score, much less a potentially very biased score, to be of that much added value to 3.5. I additionally don't find adding an additional "feat point system" to the game to be of that much added value either. Nor explaining the new set of rules to players who may be new and already struggling to gain system mastery, or re-training old players who are used to playing a certain way.

Hence my focus on simplicity. Want more feats? 5 skill points gets you a feat. Have a free feat slot you're not using? Get yourself 5 skill points.

It's simple, it's easy to explain and the answer is always the same. "Feat=5 skill points". No looking up what a specific feat costs, no reminding players that DMM costs 7 points and Extend Spell 6 and Deft Hands 3 and that they actually only have 2 points left over, not 4. No slowing down the game.

At this point in my 3.5-and-its-friends play-life, I'm looking for ways to make the game simpler, faster and more flexible, rather than looking for ways to add more complexity. Hence why I support a simple flat fixed cost that is already demonstrated in the game, connecting two existing elements, extended to all feats.

[Troacctid]

It's simple, it's easy to explain and the answer is always the same. "Feat=5 skill points". No looking up what a specific feat costs, no reminding players that DMM costs 7 points and Extend Spell 6 and Deft Hands 3 and that they actually only have 2 points left over, not 4. No slowing down the game.

At this point in my 3.5-and-its-friends play-life, I'm looking for ways to make the game simpler, faster and more flexible, rather than looking for ways to add more complexity. Hence why I support a simple flat fixed cost that is already demonstrated in the game, connecting two existing elements, extended to all feats.
How simple is it, really, if it also essentially requires you to overhaul the entire skill point system? Because you can't just make fighters suddenly get fewer bonus feats than rangers and barbarians—or I mean, you could, but it seems pretty unreasonable to me. Skill points aren't balanced that way.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think assigning a simplistic value of 1-3 "bad feat" "okay feat" or "good feat" is any more balancing than assigning a flat point value to all feats. If the worst a feat can be is 1 point, and the best is 3, why not make every feat 2 points and split the difference? If the proposed point system isn't going to meaningfully value the feats, then there isn't any point in having a "system".

I won’t say Toughness times three is worth Persistent Spell.
But it’s BETTER than Toughness on its own being worth Persistent Spell.

Perfect? Nope.
But don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.

[Maat Mons]

Personally, I’d be inclined to just remove bad feats from the game. There are too many feats anyway.

[False God]

How simple is it, really, if it also essentially requires you to overhaul the entire skill point system? Because you can't just make fighters suddenly get fewer bonus feats than rangers and barbarians—or I mean, you could, but it seems pretty unreasonable to me. Skill points aren't balanced that way.

It doesn't? Fighters would still get all their bonus feat slots. They'd just be able to spend 5 skill points to get more feats, or convert a feat slot into 5 skill points, as would everyone else.

The only alteration here is "You can buy a feat for 5 skill points, or spend a feat slot to get 5 skill points."

[Troacctid]

It doesn't? Fighters would still get all their bonus feat slots. They'd just be able to spend 5 skill points to get more feats, or convert a feat slot into 5 skill points, as would everyone else.
If a feat is worth 5 skill points, then the fighter's bonus feats every other level (plus an extra at 1st) are straight-up worse than having 4 extra skill points per level (plus another 12 extra at 1st), which works out to three bonus feats at level 1, one more at level 2, and a grand total of 19 bonus feats over all 20 levels—nearly twice the number of bonus feats that a fighter gets, and without the limitation of the fighter bonus feat list.

[Biggus]

I won’t say Toughness times three is worth Persistent Spell.
But it’s BETTER than Toughness on its own being worth Persistent Spell.

Perfect? Nope.
But don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.

Well said. Making 3.5 perfectly balanced would basically involve rewriting the whole thing from scratch (I know, I've tried) but there are lots of ways to make it significantly more balanced. Personally I prefer to buff the worst feats and nerf the best ones rather than use feat points, but that way you still end up in the same place; far from all being equal, but much less bad than you started.

Thinking about it, another possible approach which might involve less effort than either of the above would be to just designate the weakest feats as "minor feats" or similar and allow you to take two feats each time you'd normally get one, provided at least one is a minor feat. Shouldn't affect game balance very much, and you could quickly come up with a list of minor feats (in core, Endurance, Toughness, Skill Focus and +2/+2 skill feats, Dodge, perhaps a few others - basically, the ones pretty much everyone agrees suck).

[False God]

If a feat is worth 5 skill points, then the fighter's bonus feats every other level (plus an extra at 1st) are straight-up worse than having 4 extra skill points per level (plus another 12 extra at 1st), which works out to three bonus feats at level 1, one more at level 2, and a grand total of 19 bonus feats over all 20 levels—nearly twice the number of bonus feats that a fighter gets, and without the limitation of the fighter bonus feat list.

The Fighter is a pretty terrible class by most rankings anyway, even with nothing but Core-only. I'm not proposing anything to save a sinking ship, only an option to provide a little more choice.

Much like my point to bekeleven, y'all are welcome to invest as much time as you like attempting to rebalance the entire system, analyzing every feat, every class, every choice-point; but I'm not interested in doing that.

[Mordante]

Personally, I’d be inclined to just remove bad feats from the game. There are too many feats anyway.

A feat like dodge is pretty bad, but still a requirement for certain PrCs. How will you deal with that issue?

[thatothersting]

The "minor feats" idea sounds pretty clean and simple, though functionally it's still almost the same as the point system (it just lacks recognition of certain "potent" options as being such).

For the point system, the easiest way to do it really would be to grab a feat bible and then go through the list one by one, using a very simple system to rate them: if a feat makes you think "who would ever take THAT?" then it's a 1-point feat, and if you think "oh, I could totally use that to-" then it's a 3-pointer, and all else is worth two. Low effort, simple, straightforward, could do it in chunks, an hour or two every weekend to prevent burnout, won't take long. And yeah, you'll end up misrating a few, but so what? Right now they're all rated as a 'three', you'd be adding a degree of versatility to character building that isn't there at this time and allowing players to have more fun with parts of the system they might usually ignore, or feat trees that they'll usually be afraid to indulge in because "Oh, but I need X for my build..."

It's not hard work, really, and it's one-and-done, a bit of time that would've been spent on videogames burnt before presenting a list of 1 and 3-point feats (because everyone will know that the vast multitudes outside of those two lists are 2-point feats, so there's zero need to mention them, saving on yet more effort).

I might just do it myself, frankly, but my system mastery is rather mid. I'd probably just default assign a 3 to all Metamagic feats out of spite... which would still leave them exactly as powerful as they are, so it wouldn't actually hurt anything.

[Aquillion]

The Fighter is a pretty terrible class by most rankings anyway, even with nothing but Core-only. I'm not proposing anything to save a sinking ship, only an option to provide a little more choice.

Much like my point to bekeleven, y'all are welcome to invest as much time as you like attempting to rebalance the entire system, analyzing every feat, every class, every choice-point; but I'm not interested in doing that.
tbh the real problem isn't "fighters get fewer feats relative to several other classes now"; the real problem is that a wizard's giant int score now means that they're going to at least be competitive for the most feats in the game (obviously Factotum wins, but few other skill-point-heavy classes pump intelligence.)

[Gnaeus]

tbh the real problem isn't "fighters get fewer feats relative to several other classes now"; the real problem is that a wizard's giant int score now means that they're going to at least be competitive for the most feats in the game (obvious Factotum wins, but few other skill-point-heavy classes pump intelligence.)

Its certainly helpful for shoring up Truenamer :smallsmile:

[False God]

tbh the real problem isn't "fighters get fewer feats relative to several other classes now"; the real problem is that a wizard's giant int score now means that they're going to at least be competitive for the most feats in the game (obvious Factotum wins, but few other skill-point-heavy classes pump intelligence.)

This is only a problem relative to classes that should be getting lots of feats, and assuming that the wizard in question is dumping every other level worth of skill points (of which they only get 7, 8 if human) into extra feats. Which maybe they are, but they're going to suffer in skill areas doing that, either by lacking entire skill sets or by being demonstrably behind-level in primary skills. You'll eventually start running into party comp issues as the other classes are not getting enough skill points to cover their bases either.

If you just want a lot of feats, but don't want to deal with "all that magic jazz" then you make a martial something with extra int. But you (you the hypothetical player) are making this choice with the knowledge that in 3.5 magic far outstrips martials and now they'll have even more options.

Personally, I find more feats improves the game on the whole. I run "Pathfinder, but 3.5 in some aspects" using their more rapid feat progression and I generally find that most folks are only looking to pick up 3-4 extra feats to complete a build concept or round out their character, unless they are doing something particularly feat intensive. So I'm not really concerned that a wizard is going to dump every other level worth of skill points on getting extra feats.

3.5's inherent imbalance, especially between magic users and martials, is 3.5's problem. Not mine. If someone really doesn't want to play a magic user, I make due diligence to inform them they'll likely come up lacking. If they don't care, then its not my problem.

[Gnaeus]

This is only a problem relative to classes that should be getting lots of feats, and assuming that the wizard in question is dumping every other level worth of skill points (of which they only get 7, 8 if human) into extra feats. Which maybe they are, but they're going to suffer in skill areas doing that, either by lacking entire skill sets or by being demonstrably behind-level in primary skills. You'll eventually start running into party comp issues as the other classes are not getting enough skill points to cover their bases either. .

Assume a wizard has an int 8 higher than sorc. He can get a free feat every level and still have 1 more skill point than his nearest arcane equivalent. I hear a lot of complaints about sorc vs wizard but "Sorcs can't do their job because too few skill points" is rarely one. Even for mean people like me who make them sink points into knowledges to abuse planar binding or polymorph. And again, the wizard can almost certainly drop 3 points per level and still have more than Sorc.

[False God]

Assume a wizard has an int 8 higher than sorc. He can get a free feat every level and still have 1 more skill point than his nearest arcane equivalent. I hear a lot of complaints about sorc vs wizard but "Sorcs can't do their job because too few skill points" is rarely one. Even for mean people like me who make them sink points into knowledges to abuse planar binding or polymorph. And again, the wizard can almost certainly drop 3 points per level and still have more than Sorc.

As a reminder, my mark was 5 skill points per feat, not 3, that was the OP. A wizard with 7 or 8 skill points per level buying a feat every level would be left with 2 or 3. Which may be enough to cover 3 skills, but frankly I wouldn't feel comfortable playing this character or playing in a group with this character, since they're bound to dump their skill-responsibilities on other party members who likely aren't int-based classes, leaving the party in a lurch when it comes to int-based skill checks.

The Sorc is only running into problems because he's doing jobs outside his wheelhouse by using Int-based skills instead of Cha-based ones. If the Sorc wants to abuse planar binding and that means knowledge-checks then his problem is he should have played a Wizard.

I feel like y'all are throwing out a lot of odd arguments. "What if the wizard wants to take 20 feats?" "How does this improve the relationship between martials and casters!?" "Sorcerers are already falling short!" Your questions all fundamentally boil down to deeply rooted flaws in the base system, unbalanced feats, feat taxes, magic/martial imbalance, weird assignment of skill lists and limited skill points. These are all inherent problems with the design of 3.5 which I absolutely do not think allowing players to buy more feats fixes at all. The only and I'll repeat ONLY thing this does is let players grab a few more feats if they want them. It's goal is nothing more than that.

[JNAProductions]

"If no one tries to do anything outside design expectations, everything works just fine," isn't exactly the endorsement you think it is.

You can't just rely on the best use-case scenario, you also have to prepare for people using it in ways that aren't explicitly what you'd imagine.

[False God]

"If no one tries to do anything outside design expectations, everything works just fine," isn't exactly the endorsement you think it is.

You can't just rely on the best use-case scenario, you also have to prepare for people using it in ways that aren't explicitly what you'd imagine.

Actually, I can. Because relying on best-use is a good way to measure player capacity to prioritize group fun over personal fun. People who go outside the best-use range (which is fairly large) are not concerns for system changes. They're concerns for group changes.

At some point, the burden shifts from "how did the game break?" to "why are they breaking the game?". Games should be flexible, but attempting to make them unbreakable is a fools errand.

I get that a lot of people here like to hyper-fixate on rules lawyering, edge-cases, and white room theorizing; but my IRL experience is that most people play in a best-use manner. These theoretical hyperbolic extremes more or less don't exist outside of toxic players. And no amount of game fixing is going to fix a human whose only concern is themselves.

[JNAProductions]

Actually, I can. Because relying on best-use is a good way to measure player capacity to prioritize group fun over personal fun. People who go outside the best-use range (which is fairly large) are not concerns for system changes. They're concerns for group changes.

At some point, the burden shifts from "how did the game break?" to "why are they breaking the game?". Games should be flexible, but attempting to make them unbreakable is a fools errand.

I get that a lot of people here like to hyper-fixate on rules lawyering, edge-cases, and white room theorizing; but my IRL experience is that most people play in a best-use manner. These theoretical hyperbolic extremes more or less don't exist outside of toxic players. And no amount of game fixing is going to fix a human whose only concern is themselves.

I don't think "Wizard with 20 Int, 2 SP and one feat per level" is good for the game.
I also don't think that a player that makes that is being abusive with the rules or deserves to be kicked or anything like that.

When you make a rule that is that easy to make OP... That's on you. It's not some obscure combination of different sources, combined in a way that's blatantly against RAI, it's just using the rule as it's plainly written.

[False God]

I don't think "Wizard with 20 Int, 2 SP and one feat per level" is good for the game.
I also don't think that a player that makes that is being abusive with the rules or deserves to be kicked or anything like that.

When you make a rule that is that easy to make OP... That's on you. It's not some obscure combination of different sources, combined in a way that's blatantly against RAI, it's just using the rule as it's plainly written.

I'm confused, is the player using the rules in an extreme to get a lot of feats way but not causing problems, or are they using the rules in an extreme way to make themselves OP and causing a problem?

You can't have your argument both ways that they're going to extremes(lots of feats, low skills) but not abusing the system, and that they're also going to extremes(lots of feats specifically to be OP) and abusing the system. Either they're causing a problem or they aren't. Fixing systems doesn't fix players. I'm not here to fix a 20-year-old system and my group isn't a therapy session.

My experience with implementing this, which I note everyone so far here has avoided addressing in favor of more hypotheticals is: Lots of feats don't negatively impact the game and most people play with best-use in mind.

If you haven't actually used the system, maybe do that before coming back at me with more hypothetical nonsense. If you don't want to, just say that and put your time to better use. I'm tired of repeating myself. My answer hasn't changed. Everything you see as potentially problematic is achievable fairly easily with the default system. I'm not here to fix 3.5.

Future responders can reread my previous posts in this thread. I won't be making any more.

[Troacctid]

I'd rather just give everyone extra feats rather than adopt such a blatantly asymmetrical houserule that wonks up inter-class balance. Also, the fact that no one takes Open Minded indicates to me that the going rate for feats is, in reality, a lot higher than 5 skill points.

[pabelfly]

If I were playing in a system where I could trade five skill points for a feat, I'd abuse it heavily. INT would be my main stat, regardless of my character role, and I'm either picking Human or a race with bonus INT, simply because skill points and intelligence are so much better than what every other stat does.

Let's say I play as a Human with 18 INT and get the Faerie Mysteries Intiate feat at level 1. I'm getting 6 extra skill points per level, and I'm trading five of those for a free feat every level. If I'm playing a class with high skill points like Rogue or Ranger, and I probably would, I'd be trading ten skill points for two feats every level.

There's easier and less messy ways to give out extra feats - I like the Pathfinder feat progression and tried doing PF2e's "different feat types at each level" and that wasn't too bad - but remember, whatever changes you make to the 3e system, optimizers will always get way more out of a change compared to a casual player, especially if that change is only casually-considered by the DM.

[Aquillion]

I think it's probably best to avoid inadvertently buffing one of the strongest classes in the game. And wizards definitely don't really have much they need to spend skill points on - their only particularly important skill is Concentration, everything else is very optional.

I guess one way to fix this, if a bit hacky, is to make it so you can't spend the extra skill points you gain from intelligence on feats. This would still free up their base 2 per level but that's not as big of a deal.

[Darg]

It still really hurts the regular martials with only 2 base skill points per level. Fighter would have an equivalent of 1 extra feat per 2.5 levels vs a rogue who gets 1⅗ per level. Outpacing the Fighter's bonus feats and still getting features.

Then again I'd advocate for skill point reassignments for non spellcasting/max 4ths classes. Fighter/paladin getting 6 skill points per level seems fair.