Feat Idea: Preemptive (formerly Delayed) Training [P.E.A.C.H.]

[Omnicrat]

I'm homebrewing this for the worst possible reason; I have a character idea that would want to take it.

I'm not sure if this was broken or bad, so I figured why not post it here and get the perspective of the playground!

Preemptive Training
You have studied a technique you cannot yet master, but once you advance enough you will... so long as you do not take too long.
Prerequisite: None
Benefit: Select a feat you do not currently qualify for, for whatever reason and mark that feat on your sheet. If you qualify for that feat within the next two levels, you gain that feat and loose this one.
Special: If you do not qualify for the selected feat within 2 levels, loose this feat and replace it with nothing.

So, what is your opinion?

note: I basically just threw this together right now, though I've had the idea bouncing around in my head for a while, so feel free to suggest more elegant wording and a better name.

Spoiler: Origonal Feat

Show

Delayed Training
You have forgone some of your advancement as you progress in power so that you may one day learn more than you could today.
Prerequisite: None
Benefit: None
Special: When you level up, you may trade this feat out for any one that you currently qualify for, replacing this feat with the new one.

[Fortuna]

I don't like it.

And I don't like it for two reasons, each arising from a context in which it might be used. If it's used in the context of an ongoing campaign, then it's effectively a power now for power later trade - which, as a matter of principle, I think is bad design. You shouldn't pay in present power for future power, nor vice versa. On the other hand, if it's used in the context of building a higher-level character, it amounts to free power, which I dislike for obvious reasons.

Finally, from a fluff perspective, I don't see what this is meant to represent. Overall, I think the concept is probably deeply flawed, though I'm willing to be proved wrong there, and I think this implementation is not good, and not something I'd allow in a game I was running.

[Omnicrat]

I don't like it.

And I don't like it for two reasons, each arising from a context in which it might be used. If it's used in the context of an ongoing campaign, then it's effectively a power now for power later trade - which, as a matter of principle, I think is bad design. You shouldn't pay in present power for future power, nor vice versa. On the other hand, if it's used in the context of building a higher-level character, it amounts to free power, which I dislike for obvious reasons.

Finally, from a fluff perspective, I don't see what this is meant to represent. Overall, I think the concept is probably deeply flawed, though I'm willing to be proved wrong there, and I think this implementation is not good, and not something I'd allow in a game I was running.

Well, the idea is that its used in a campaign starting at level 1 (my idea for it, anyway) and it is a power now for power later trade, that's the whole point. You don't get a feat this level so that next level you get the feat with a higher level requirement that you now meet.

It can represent 1 of 2 things. The idea I posted above is basically that you chose to wait to undergo whatever is required to gain a feat this level (helpful in campaign where you need someone to teach you feats and skills) until you meet the criteria required for the feat.

The other idea I had that I didn't post (because it is more restrictive) is you pick a specific feat you do not meet the prerequisite of yet, and once you reach that prerequisite, that feat replaces this one. This version would be called "Preemptive Training" or some such.

Also, you say the implementation is not good. Given that you are opposed to the idea of power now for power later trade, what would be good implementation, in your opinion?

[D-naras]

How about making the feat force you to choose a replacement on your next level? This way, a level 1 rogue can get weapon finesse at level 2 and not spend another level missing all of his attacks. It's a compromise for sure, but at least it can now be kept in check. (Obviously, you can't replace this feat with another instance of it.)

[Qwertystop]

Here's the problems as I see it:
First, if feats are something learned in-character, through specific training separate from whatever gains you the XP: The normal restriction that you can't delay taking them makes no sense anyway. Thus, this feat becomes a patch for a hole caused by the general need for abstraction.

From an out-of-character view, though, this breaks a basic assumption. The inability to do pretty much exactly this is probably a limiter on lots of characters - I know I've had plenty of first-levellers who couldn't take anything useful at the start. You're just removing the rule that you can't delay it, and calling it a feat. I can't speak for the balance implications of this, but... if you're going to houserule something, don't call it homebrew. Just houserule it.

[Zweisteine]

This feat is interesting, and rather useful, unless using normal retraining rules. If you have that, this feat is next to useless.

I'm not sure if this is too good, but it is most certainly not too weak. I probably wouldn't allow this in a high-op game, but it's not bad at all in low to
mid-op.

My DM houserules that you can take a feat before meeting prerequisites, but it gives you nothing until you do. This is not bad at all in low-op games, but could be game-breaking otherwise.


The first thing I can think to do with this: let a Warblade get the fear Weapon Supremacy.

[Veklim]

In a game where the DM allows feat retraining, this is a damned good idea, because it does away with the occassional mess involved with removing feat modifications to a sheet upon said retraining. In a game where feat retraining is NOT available, this feat will be nixed by the DM anyhow (if they're worth their salt anyhow), so in essence I don't have a problem with this, even though I wouldn't allow it in one of my games.

Regardless of the above, I agree with the sentiment of D-naras, in that there should be a limiter to how long your 'feat in potentia' may last before it must be taken, and I advise this is no more than 2 levels worth of play, for a multitude of good reasons. Selecting the feat which will be replaced is a good idea as well, and perhaps I'd be more inclined towards this feat if you had to select the replacement and wait no more than 1 level for it.

Either way, it could cause huge issues for an unwary DM with a cunning player to deal with, but it's an interesting thought none-the-less...

The one ENORMOUS problem with this is inherant balance issues. If 3 feats all require a minimum of say 12 ranks in a skill, then the chances are having all 3 at level 9 could well give you a huge advantage on not only the rest of the party (unfair to the other players) or quite likely messing about with challenge ratings too (unfair to the DM). This is all arbitrary, but if you like, I might bother to try and break this REALLY hard on a build for you, and we can see what you think then...

[Omnicrat]

... You're just removing the rule that you can't delay it, and calling it a feat. I can't speak for the balance implications of this, but... if you're going to houserule something, don't call it homebrew. Just houserule it.

Yes, that is pretty much what the original feat was, but that was a rough idea. I am MUCH more happy with the new feat, though I suppose a case could still be made that its just a "house rule."

...

Regardless of the above, I agree with the sentiment of D-naras, in that there should be a limiter to how long your 'feat in potentia' may last before it must be taken, and I advise this is no more than 2 levels worth of play, for a multitude of good reasons. Selecting the feat which will be replaced is a good idea as well, and perhaps I'd be more inclined towards this feat if you had to select the replacement and wait no more than 1 level for it.

Either way, it could cause huge issues for an unwary DM with a cunning player to deal with, but it's an interesting thought none-the-less...

The one ENORMOUS problem with this is inherant balance issues. If 3 feats all require a minimum of say 12 ranks in a skill, then the chances are having all 3 at level 9 could well give you a huge advantage on not only the rest of the party (unfair to the other players) or quite likely messing about with challenge ratings too (unfair to the DM). This is all arbitrary, but if you like, I might bother to try and break this REALLY hard on a build for you, and we can see what you think then...

Yeah, I knew (was pretty sure) that it wasn't a good feat as-built in the sense that it could easily be broken. Stacking 3 level 9 feats at level 9 didn't even occur to me, since that isn't what I wanted to use it for. I think the new version should fix that problem, but is there any reason why it should be a single level of waiting instead of 2?

[Veklim]

The game runs by the expectation of 1 feat every 3 levels, if you have to wait 3 or more levels for a feat, take it with your next one...also, it needs a limiter FIRMLY in place to stop early PrC/feat access shenanigans, and this slows the possibility of true silliness in this regard.

As it stands, I can admit a limited utility for multi-class issues when taking an unusual route to a PrC, where 1 level difference can be easily absorbed without too much balance issue, every level you 'wait out' after that opens up more and more scope for abuse. Basically it's a deliberately severe limiting factor which largely mitigates the potential for power play and munchkinism.

[Omnicrat]

I understand being open for more levels leads to more abuse, but this way it stops before you have a chance to gain new feats through normal means. Is there any specific problem you can think of that a 2 levels of waiting has over 1 level of waiting or just the amorphous potential that increasing the time span brings?

[Veklim]

I understand being open for more levels leads to more abuse, but this way it stops before you have a chance to gain new feats through normal means. Is there any specific problem you can think of that a 2 levels of waiting has over 1 level of waiting or just the amorphous potential that increasing the time span brings?

It's mostly just the increased potential of abuse, like I say, this is something which I wouldn't allow in my games, but there have been exceptions in the past where I've houseruled similar issues so overall, the feat isn't too broken now but I'd still not use it.

[Omnicrat]

Add the following line:

Special: Feats gained by use of this feat cannot be used to qualify for a prestige class.

Before I do that, could I actually get some examples of this allowing early access? Because so far all we seem to have is the theory of early access, and that could be limiting if one would get into the PrC at the designated level anyway, they just didn't fully meet the prerequisites at the time or something.

[Omnicrat]

Just because I am not a theoretical optimiser, it doesn't follow that I can't recognise a loophole to get an advantage that isn't intended.

Of course, if this feat is intended to get early PrC entry, then I'd veto it entirely.


tbh, I can't see what this feat is supposed to represent, either story-wise, or otherwise. That in itself is almost reason enough to deny it.

I actually had the idea so that I could get leadership at level 4 without a bonus feat at level 4. Like I said, not a good reason to homebrew something.

Story-wise, at Level 3 the character starts building a "following" which turns into followers at level 4, in the example I would be using it in. Another example of what is happening in-world: (fighter could take this feat if he doesn't yet have enough dex to qualify for an archery feat, but should in 2 levels) A fighter has been training in a new archery technique, but hasn't yet been able to get it quite right, he just needs a bit more finesse.

The problem I have with the feat not being usable for PrC entry is it doesn't allow for PrC entry in 10 levels when you are supposed to, or even after you are supposed to take the first level of the PrC, and I don't want to do that unless I see a SPECIFIC terrible problem. Maybe a note to the DM to not allow early access via this feat?

[Omnicrat]

In terms of followers, you don't actually need Leadership to have those. That is as much a RP exercise in recruitment as it is a feat. All the feat actually does is let you get them without paying a regular salary (although you still need to ensure they have a means of livelihood) and make it very easy to replace them if they get killed. If the campaign story arc makes it appropriate, you don't even need to pay a salary.

Amerchra's Leadership feats, not standard Leadership. And there is not a real campaign, the character was just an idea I've had kicking around for a while.

[Omnicrat]

So you're making a questionable feat for a character that likely won't be played, which is designed to work in conjunction with a homebrew feat that you decline to identify in your initial post, and you challenge me to find the feat that would break the game when used in conjunction with with your feat.

Dude, I'm not a mind reader.

Not challenged, asked if you were aware of any.

Also, I was seeing if the feat could be made not questionable, though I doubted it could. Honestly, its already much better than I expected.

Finally, nothing you say before your and has anything to do with the part after, so I do not know why you would need to be a mindreader.