(d20/3.5) Cleaving Feats in Twain

[Kaihaku]

This is another houserule I'm pondering...

Feats are divided into Feats and Knacks.

Feats enable a character to perform actions that they could not previously; examples would be quick draw, power attack, item creation, metamagic, armor proficiency, or any of the attribute substitutes (e.g. CHA instead of WIS on Will Saves). Feats provide a character with new abilities that often, but not always, take the spotlight in the situations they influence.

Knacks provide a static improvement to existing abilities; examples would be skill focus, toughness, weapon focus, spell focus, any of the +2 to one saving throw, or any of the +2 to 2 skills. Knacks add depth and potential to a character but often go unnoticed in the situations they influence.

I favor this houserule for two primary reasons... 1) It riles me that 'Athletic' is considered equivalent to Power Attack and 2) when I pick a Feat I want it to be a FEAT.

Now, are the categories clear? Is there a better way that I could reword them? Any gray areas?

[AstralFire]

I would divide them on effective power, not how they affect things. While generally passive is weaker than active, I don't think armor proficiency or Force of Personality (barring a huge difference between the two stats) is up there with Power Attack and Quick Draw definitely isn't.

[Kaihaku]

I would divide them on effective power, not how they affect things. While generally passive is weaker than active, I don't think armor proficiency or Force of Personality (barring a huge difference between the two stats) is up there with Power Attack and Quick Draw definitely isn't.

I agree with you. But, at the same time, I don't want to get caught categorizing the massive heap of feats out there. This keeps compatibility with splatbooks without me having to sort through all of them. So it would make things more balanced but it would not achieve balance... I'm alright with that.

[Mastikator]

Do you get feats or knacks each 3 levels? Do fighters and wizards still get bonus feats, do they get either? Do humans get a bonus feat or a bonus knack?

[Saintjebus]

So, for example, when a fighter gets a bonus feat, he also gets a bonus knack? or does each character get a knack every 3rd level like they get feats? How would you implement this?

Edit: Ninja'd

[Kaihaku]

Good questions but I'm actually planning on using this in a Generic Classes variant... I've only mentally fleshed out how it would look in that variant.

For the standard game, personally...

• I would probably give all classes a bonus Knack on levels when they don't gain any class features (new spells per level are class features in my mind so no benefit to full casters).
• Humans would gain a Bonus Feat or a Bonus Knack, they would still have the full range of options.
• Wizards would remain as is with access to Metamagic Feats, Item Creation Feats, and the Spell Focus Knack.
• I don't know what sort of level progression I would use for Knacks in the standard game...

[FMArthur]

Can you choose to take a knack instead of a feat? Might that be equivalent to two knacks?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I agree with you. But, at the same time, I don't want to get caught categorizing the massive heap of feats out there. This keeps compatibility with splatbooks without me having to sort through all of them. So it would make things more balanced but it would not achieve balance... I'm alright with that.

If you're already categorizing by impressiveness, you could always combine feats--Quick Draw is an active ability that isn't impressive on its own, for instance, but if you combine it with Rapid Strike (+1d6 in the first round of combat) or another mediocre feat that works well in the first round, you'd have a solid feat.

[Salvonus]

One thing that I've always tended towards when DMing is to give out so-called "fluff feats". It sounds pretty much like what you're doing here.

Off the top of my head, here are the rules that I generally use:

• There is no set list. Players should bring forth sensible ideas about what they want to take as a "fluff" feat.
• You get one at 1st level, plus one at every 5th level (5th, 10th, 15th, 20th).
• Generally speaking, it has to fit the flavour of their character, and not be particularly powerful.
• It cannot be used as a prerequisite for a PrC or non-"fluff" feat.
• If you do need it as a prereq for something, you can trade out one of your "regular" feats for it and take a new fluff feat in its place.

I also give out 2 (x4 at 1st) "fluff" skill points per level.

[Thespianus]

One thing that I've always tended towards when DMing is to give out so-called "fluff feats". It sounds pretty much like what you're doing here.

(snipped)

• It cannot be used as a prerequisite for a PrC or non-"fluff" feat.
• If you do need it as a prereq for something, you can trade out one of your "regular" feats for it and take a new fluff feat in its place.

I also give out 2 (x4 at 1st) "fluff" skill points per level.

Sounds great. My only change to this would be that certain obvious "fluff feats" (Let's say Toughness that gives 3 extra hitpoints) are required for some feats or PrCs. In this case I wouldn't upgrade the lame Toughness feat to a "real" feat if the character needed it for a PrC.

I like skillful characters. Beatsticks with a Intelligence score of 8 shouldn't be screwed in physical skills like jump just because they're stupid. +2 skillpoints / level for each class is nice, or at least make the lowest number of "base-skillpoints" for each class be 4 instead of 2.

[AstralFire]

Sounds great. My only change to this would be that certain obvious "fluff feats" (Let's say Toughness that gives 3 extra hitpoints) are required for some feats or PrCs. In this case I wouldn't upgrade the lame Toughness feat to a "real" feat if the character needed it for a PrC.

Depends on the PrC.

If the PrC is Ultimate McCheater of Ruby Abjurations and the requirements are Alertness, Toughness, Skill Focus (Autohypnosis), Wild Talent, and Maximize Spell, I'm probably not going to let them take any shortcuts.

If the PrC is Forsaker McElemental Duelist of Poverty Dragons, sure. Take shortcuts. Take the entire box. Good luck.

[oxinabox]

Really even the 'bad' feats are good.
Just that their "good" is under very specialised set of circumastances.

Eg I thought iron will was usless.
Just a measy +2 to a saving throw.
But then when playing my warblade:
-1 Wis mod, at lvl 7 +2 will
My will save was 1!
Suddenly Iron will seemed awesome
I still have the worst will save, but now on a good roll i make my save.


Now toughness +3 HP.
I've often considered changin that to +1d2 per Class Lvl (Retroactively applied), or something along those lines.
But then you look as a low lvl wizard.
Proper wizards use con as a dumpstat.
to A Lvl 4 wizard, +3 HP might double their HP.
though In the long term it's bad, but you mush live to get to the longterm

[bosssmiley]

Simplify further. Feats + Knacks are another section into the character creation mini-game that players have to go through before starting the real game.

I'd go so far as to suggest you stop rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic and instead think about doing something similar to Tome-style scaling feats. No extra picking and choosing required, and your defining character shtick stays relevant for longer. Stuff like knacks should just be an aspect or perk of having a specific feat.

Example:

Iron Will
You are able to grit your teeth and shake off mental influences.
BAB Benefit
+0: You gain a +3 bonus to your Willpower saves.
+1: You gain the slippery mind ability of a Rogue.
+6: If you are stunned, you are dazed instead.
+11: You do not suffer penalties from pain and fear.
+16: You are immune to compulsion effects.

That is a feat that stays relevant as a character levels up. A meaningful feat choice is not a throwaway flat bonus which can be replicated by a cheap "+x to y" magic item, or something a character should already have as a basic function of his class (power attack, weapon finesse, mounted combat, exotic weapon proficiency, etc.)

Give full-BAB classes feats like that and maybe, just maybe, they can start to play the same game as the full casters.

[Devils_Advocate]

Weapon and armor proficiencies are actually knacks in d20. They don't grant the ability to use anything; they just take away penalties. To wield a weapon or wear an armor, you just need to be the right size and shape.

I think that at some point in D&D's development, weapon proficiencies actually were feats; a Wizard couldn't use a sword at all. "I can't pick it up! It's like there's an invisible barrier surrounding it!"

Sometimes 3.5 made things into feats when they should have been knacks. Climbing onto a giant enemy, for example, was a use of some feat, I think. Instead, it should have been an action that anyone could attempt, and the feat should have just granted a bonus and allowed the character to avoid AoOs.

[Rixx]

This sounds similar to the "Traits" system in Pathfinder - usually always-active boosts to skills or certain situational modifiers. They're also called "Half-feats", since they're roughly half as powerful as a feat. The Traits are character-flavor themed, and my DM let me make up one or two. For example, I have a character who has an aversion to being touched, so she gets a +1 to Touch AC (only for melee touch attacks), +1 defense against grappling, and +1 Reflex saves when it relates to avoiding being touched. Not terribly useful, but good from a flavor standpoint.

[Kallisti]

Weapon and armor proficiencies are actually knacks in d20. They don't grant the ability to use anything; they just take away penalties. To wield a weapon or wear an armor, you just need to be the right size and shape.

I think that at some point in D&D's development, weapon proficiencies actually were feats; a Wizard couldn't use a sword at all. "I can't pick it up! It's like there's an invisible barrier surrounding it!"

Sometimes 3.5 made things into feats when they should have been knacks. Climbing onto a giant enemy, for example, was a use of some feat, I think. Instead, it should have been an action that anyone could attempt, and the feat should have just granted a bonus and allowed the character to avoid AoOs.

In D&D 1.0 and 2.0, you had to be proficient with the weapon to wield it. You could pick it up to put it in your backpack or hand it to the fighter, you could even wave it menacingly to scare people away, but you could not make an attack with it...

I like the thought of the feats/knacks, it makes sense, and I also like the idea of combining low-power feats. BUt how do you implement the feats/knacks rules? Would it just be that every time a character would get a feat, they can pick a feat or a knack? What good does that rule do? Maybe a feat every four levels and a knack every four? You'd get a "feat" every other level, though, even if half of them are knacks...

It's a good idea, though. It could work...