Four feats at first level?

[draco_nite]

I was reading http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5213.0 and the poster seems to have taken four feats at first level as a human. How is this possible?

[senrath]

Flaws, I assume. Take two of 'em and you get 2 more feats. 1 + 1 (Human Bonus) + 2 (Flaws) = 4.

[Optimystik]

For reference, Flaws are here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingcharacters/characterflaws.htm)

[gallagher]

Flaws, I assume. Take two of 'em and you get 2 more feats. 1 + 1 (Human Bonus) + 2 (Flaws) = 4.
or one flaw and a level of fighter

[senrath]

or one flaw and a level of fighter

Not in this case. None of the 4 feats mentioned are available as Fighter bonus feats.

[Safety Sword]

Flaws, I assume. Take two of 'em and you get 2 more feats. 1 + 1 (Human Bonus) + 2 (Flaws) = 4.

Aromatic cheese anyone?

[sofawall]

Flaws are fairly common, actually. Everyone knows they're good, very good, but not necessarily too good.

[Safety Sword]

Flaws are fairly common, actually. Everyone knows they're good, very good, but not necessarily too good.

And usually the negative stuff associated with them is conveniently forgotten about, so they basically become free feats, pungent with fromage.

[sofawall]

And usually the negative stuff associated with them is conveniently forgotten about, so they basically become free feats, pungent with fromage.

Er, that is not cheese, that is called cheating.

People tend to take flaws that don't effect their character. Shaky on an Charger, or Murky-Eyed on a Rogue, for example. Vulnerable is also a common choice.

[Cog]

And usually the negative stuff associated with them is conveniently forgotten about, so they basically become free feats, pungent with fromage.

The problem with cheese is when it throws off the balance of the game. If all the players have access to flaws, and if it's the DM allowing them to do so, and who can then balance encounters accordingly... where's the problem, again?

[mikeejimbo]

The problem with cheese is when it throws off the balance of the game. If all the players have access to flaws, and if it's the DM allowing them to do so, and who can then balance encounters accordingly... where's the problem, again?

The problem occurs when some players are better at optimization than others, and overshadow their peers. The game isn't just GM vs Players, everyone is supposed to have fun and all, that kind of thing, etc etc.

[Marriclay]

The problem with cheese is when it throws off the balance of the game. If all the players have access to flaws, and if it's the DM allowing them to do so, and who can then balance encounters accordingly... where's the problem, again?

very true. if the players are wasting things with a cr 3 levels higher than their party level, rev up the challenge and watch sparks fly. it's why you can't actually break DnD (except for those infinite loops and pun-pun, but that's a whole different story.)

[sonofzeal]

I generally allow two "free" flaws. Feats are the lifeblood of character distinctiveness, but most of the best classes in the game care least for many of the penalties that come with flaws, while the worst classes struggle hardest to find one that doesn't nerf them even more. I haven't found a problem yet with giving out a couple extra feats at character creation.

[true_shinken]

I hate flaws. Never allowed them in my game, never will.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If I can justify a link between the flaw and the granted feat, and flaws are allowed, I'll take the flaws. Keeps the flaws semi-relevant to my character.

As a DM, I don't allow flaws. I don't feel like balancing for the extra 2 feats.

[AstralFire]

I'm more inclined to just allow extra feats than flaws. As sonofzeal said, the best classes don't mind flaws and the others do.

[Optimystik]

The right flaws can lead to rich roleplay, as well as giving the DM an avenue to challenge players more.

Not only would I allow them, I would develop some of my own, and make sure that PCs can only take flaws that would affect them in some way.

[Foryn Gilnith]

The right flaws can lead to rich roleplay.

The problem is that most listed flaws are physical. The flaws that I find most useful to the story are the sort of flaws found in Greek heroes and their ilk, and those aren't accounted for in UA - nor do they need feats as compensation.

[AstralFire]

You can get some interesting results with a party of all mid-low tiers and flaws. Half of my party had shaky. After several encounters where ranged attacks were beneficial (particularly one for our rogue where the enemy would whirlwind through his low health and AC if he got in melee), they all used their next feat to get rid of shaky. :smallamused:

Then there was the person who had hydrophobia, a custom flaw they dreamed up. The party ended up taking a looooooooooong underwater trip to Xen'drik from Frostfell...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I don't allow flaws, but everyone gets an extra feat at levels 1, 11, 21, 31, etc.

The character in question could have been an Elf using the Chaos Shuffle...

[Amphetryon]

It's easy enough to get more than 4 Feats, legally, with 2 Flaws, by the way.

Example:

Human Wizard, 1st level -
1 for 1st level: Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Human: Greater Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Wizard: Scribe Scroll
1 for Non-combatant: Extend Spell
1 for Vulnerable: Delay Spell
and a Rat Familiar for
(Virtual) Alertness and
(Virtual) Great Fortitude.

Seven Feats.

[Scorpions__]

It's easy enough to get more than 4 Feats, legally, with 2 Flaws, by the way.

Example:

Human Wizard, 1st level -
1 for 1st level: Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Human: Greater Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Wizard: Scribe Scroll
1 for Non-combatant: Extend Spell
1 for Vulnerable: Delay Spell
and a Rat Familiar for
(Virtual) Alertness and
(Virtual) Great Fortitude.

Seven Feats.

Add in taint for four more.





DM[F]R

[Runestar]

Worship an elder evil for more vile feats? :smallbiggrin:

[Adumbration]

Add in taint for four more.

Also, worship an elder evil for another extra feat.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

[Telonius]

Human Monk gets four at level 1 without really trying.
Standard first-level feat
Extra feat for being human
Bonus Monk feat
Improved Unarmed Strike

If the regular first-level feat and the human feat are Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, he gets another bonus Exalted feat, for a total of five, even before flaws.

[The Glyphstone]

If you stick to the flaws printed in UA, they're not bad - all of them have fairly broad applications, and while you can minimize their impact (Noncombatant on a wizard), it'll still be there. Dragon magazine, on the other hand, had a lot more flaws, which broadened the spectrum...there were lots of great, flavorful and fluffy flaws, but also plenty of utter cheese that you could take with even less impact than the UA ones.

[J.Gellert]

If you stick to the flaws printed in UA, they're not bad - all of them have fairly broad applications, and while you can minimize their impact (Noncombatant on a wizard), it'll still be there. Dragon magazine, on the other hand, had a lot more flaws, which broadened the spectrum...there were lots of great, flavorful and fluffy flaws, but also plenty of utter cheese that you could take with even less impact than the UA ones.

I actually loved the flaws associated with losing class features, like trading your wizard familiar for a bonus feat. Having a tiny animal that follows you around doesn't fit every caster concept and trading it for Abrupt Jaunt is just brokenation.

Then I moved to point-based Mutants and Masterminds and got over it.

Another issue had flaws associated with races. Some of them were interesting for frontliners, like penalties associated with withdrawing from melee (nice for paladins) but these fall under "Doesn't affect everyone equally" so...

[Curmudgeon]

The problem occurs when some players are better at optimization than others, and overshadow their peers.
Two things:

1) That's got nothing specific to do with flaws.

2) I's not a peer-vs.-peer problem; it's a player-vs.-DM problem. It's the responsibility of the DM to make the game fun for everyone. Obviously that's going to be difficult for an optimized Cleric and an unoptimized CW Samurai in the same party. :smallamused:

If the PC has Murky-Eyed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#murkyEyed), the DM should make sure concealment is an ongoing issue in combat. If the PC takes Shaky (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#shaky), a good number of enemies should attack with missile weapons and run away rather than permit melee. It's especially important to make sure physical flaws matter to spellcasters, so come up with situations where enemies close to touch attack range if they take Noncombatant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#noncombatant), for example.

If the "optimizer" complains that the weaknesses of their flaws are an issue, rocks should fall on their character in crevasses, roof slates should fall on them in alleys, and hail should hit them in open terrain. See how they like being Frail (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#frail) then. :smallfurious:

[Optimystik]

It's easy enough to get more than 4 Feats, legally, with 2 Flaws, by the way.

Example:

Human Wizard, 1st level -
1 for 1st level: Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Human: Greater Spell Focus (Illusion)
1 for Wizard: Scribe Scroll
1 for Non-combatant: Extend Spell
1 for Vulnerable: Delay Spell
and a Rat Familiar for
(Virtual) Alertness and
(Virtual) Great Fortitude.

Seven Feats.

Erudite as well:

Human Erudite 1
1 for first level: Skill Focus (Concentration)
1 for Human: Improved Initiative
1 for Erudite: Psionic Body
1 Bonus: Psicrystal Affinty
1 for Non-combatant: Overchannel
1 for Vulnerable: Talented
(Virtual) Alertness
(Virtual) Personality: Identical to Skill Focus, but also stacks with it. (Example: Single-minded has the same bonus as SF (Concentration) and stacks with it.)

Total = 8 (before Taint + Elder Evil worship + FC2 Contracts)

[Eldariel]

I like just giving people bonus feats instead. Most characters spend their feats on essentials not being able to take "cool things", and almost every class is feat-starved leading to stupid Fighter-dips and stuff like that in martials, and simple focus-on-the-essentials on casters.

EDIT: Cloistered Cleric also gets 3 Devotions...

[Prime32]

It even says in the flaw section that players are expected to take flaws which don't affect their characters that much, and that's why their penalties are larger than the bonuses you can get from a feat (since you choose the feats which help you most and the flaws which hurt you least).

[Lycanthromancer]

It even says in the flaw section that players are expected to take flaws which don't affect their characters that much, and that's why their penalties are larger than the bonuses you can get from a feat (since you choose the feats which help you most and the flaws which hurt you least).Which is why I take Murky-Eyed, 'cuz I like taking Mindsight, Life Sense, and touchsight. :smallbiggrin:

[Optimystik]

EDIT: Cloistered Cleric also gets 3 Devotions...

No, by RAW you can only trade one domain for a devotion feat. You can pick up the rest normally, but not by trading in domains for them.


Which is why I take Murky-Eyed, 'cuz I like taking Mindsight, Life Sense, and touchsight. :smallbiggrin:

Knowing what square an enemy is in does not unfortunately negate concealment :smalltongue:

Though you could just use targeted powers anyway.

[Eldariel]

No, by RAW you can only trade one domain for a devotion feat. You can pick up the rest normally, but not by trading in domains for them.

I'm just going to say this is subject to a lot of controversy, but I'm lead to believe you are reading RAW wrong. There's...been discussion as to whether people are reading an invisible restriction where none exists, or if the restriction is implied by the text. I'll say this though: The entry on Clerics and Domains states you may trade Domain for Devotion. It is in no way restricted how many times you may do that; the only restriction is that you may only have 3 Domain-feats total if you've done this.

[term1nally s1ck]

No, by RAW you can only trade one domain for a devotion feat. You can pick up the rest normally, but not by trading in domains for them.

"In addition, you can choose to give up access to a domain in exchange for the corresponding domain feat. Doing so allows you to select up to 3 domain feats, but you cannot prepare domain spells of use the granted power of the sacrificed domain"

Where does it say you can only do this once?

[Optimystik]

"In addition, you can choose to give up access to a domain in exchange for the corresponding domain feat. Doing so allows you to select up to 3 domain feats, but you cannot prepare domain spells of use the granted power of the sacrificed domain"

Where does it say you can only do this once?

Emphasis added.
Remember that without the domain trade, you can only take a maximum two devotion feats (pg. 52). Two is the cap - therefore, for clerics, three is the cap, reachable only by trading one domain in for one devotion feat.

Also note that "a domain" is singular. You can only give up access to one.


You can select a domain feat at any level. Once you have chosen one, however, you cannot select another unless the second fits thematically with the first. Furthermore, you can never have more than two domain feats (except as specified in Clerics and Domain Feats, below).

The confusion comes from calling them "domain feats" on page 52 - There, it is referring to the domains of the deity, not of the cleric. Remember that non-clerics can take these feats just fine, as long as they worship a deity.

[Eldariel]

Emphasis added.
Remember that without the domain trade, you can only take a maximum two devotion feats (pg. 52). Two is the cap - therefore, for clerics, three is the cap, reachable only by trading one domain in for one devotion feat.

Also note that "a domain" is singular. You can only give up access to one.

Yes, but the question is why cannot you do this particular trade multiple times? It in no way infers the Cleric need reach this limit through trading one and taking two feats; nothing at all stops a Cleric from trading for all three feats and reaching his limit.

"A domain" is singular, yes, but that only means you can only trade one domain for one domain, or in other words, nothing relevant. However, as I said it's subject to a lot of controversy and I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I'll just bow out of this discussion.

[term1nally s1ck]

:smallconfused:

Indefinite article

An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not yet a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing. English uses a or an (depending on the initial sound of the next word) as its indefinite article.

Indefinite article does NOT imply singular. If it did, tell me what the plural indefinite article is.

Unless you mean to tell me that any situation where the word 'a' is used implies the ability is only usable once? Like Evasion only dodges 'an' AoE effect that allows a reflex save?

[Optimystik]

:smallconfused:

Indefinite article

If the "a" was the entirety of my argument then it would indeed be quite shaky, I agree. But the use of "up to 3" and "a specific domain feat" in the other parts of the narrative lead me to believe they only intended a single trade.

I do see what Eldariel was getting at though, whereby the cap would apply to clerics but not the method.

Still, all that would do is give every cleric two bonus feats relative to any other character who wanted devotion feats. That does not seem to be as intended, to me.

[DragoonWraith]

Still, all that would do is give every cleric two bonus feats relative to any other character who wanted devotion feats. That does not seem to be as intended, to me.
Why not? It's not like they're free; Domain granted powers are pretty good, and the spells are nice. Having no Domains hurts cuz you effectively lose a spell slot per level, too.

[term1nally s1ck]

Half the domain granted powers ARE feats. It makes no difference compared to a cleric who would take the undeath, time, war, or a dozen or more other domains.

[Optimystik]

Why not? It's not like they're free; Domain granted powers are pretty good, and the spells are nice. Having no Domains hurts cuz you effectively lose a spell slot per level, too.

You would only lose a slot if you gave up all your domains for Domain Feats. Any character willing to do that wasn't planning on using his domain slots/powers anyway, so there is no meaningful trade-off.

[The Glyphstone]

I actually loved the flaws associated with losing class features, like trading your wizard familiar for a bonus feat. Having a tiny animal that follows you around doesn't fit every caster concept and trading it for Abrupt Jaunt is just brokenation.

Then I moved to point-based Mutants and Masterminds and got over it.

Another issue had flaws associated with races. Some of them were interesting for frontliners, like penalties associated with withdrawing from melee (nice for paladins) but these fall under "Doesn't affect everyone equally" so...

Well yeah, Forlorn is nice, because it does have a cost. I'm talking about things like Arcane Performer (must pass a Perform check of 10+spell level to cast) - Free feat for Bards, or Beastial Instict (-2 on attacks with weapons other than unarmed strikes or natural weapons) - Free feat for Monks or Unarmed Swordsages.

[Optimystik]

Well yeah, Forlorn is nice, because it does have a cost. I'm talking about things like Arcane Performer (must pass a Perform check of 10+spell level to cast) - Free feat for Bards, or Beastial Instict (-2 on attacks with weapons other than unarmed strikes or natural weapons) - Free feat for Monks or Unarmed Swordsages.

Where are those?

[IdleMuse]

I tend to only use flaws for feats that need to be taken at first level, like those that specify it in the prereqs, or feats to give you extra class skills.

[The Glyphstone]

Where are those?

As mentioned, Dragon Magazine. I found them via Realmshelps.

[Curmudgeon]

No, by RAW you can only trade one domain for a devotion feat.
Doesn't say "one"; says "a".

In addition, you can choose to give up access to a domain in exchange for the corresponding domain feat.
There is a 1:1 correspondence. It's necessary to point that out for planar domains.
A planar domain counts as both of a cleric’s domain choices. The granted powers of a planar domain are more potent than those of other domains, and each level offers two spells from which a cleric can choose when preparing spells. Giving up a planar domain still only gets you a single domain feat, not two. However, you can use any combination of regular feats and domain swaps as long as you stick to the limit of 3 domain feats for a Cleric.

There's a real limitation in there; it just isn't the one you thought.

[Optimystik]

Doesn't say "one"; says "a".
...
There's a real limitation in there; it just isn't the one you thought.

Both interpretations are plainly possible.

[Lycanthromancer]

Knowing what square an enemy is in does not unfortunately negate concealment :smalltongue:Touchsight: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/touchsight.htm) "You ignore invisibility, darkness, and concealment"

What were you saying again? I couldn't hear over the sound of BOOYAH! :smallbiggrin:

[Emmerask]

It even says in the flaw section that players are expected to take flaws which don't affect their characters that much, and that's why their penalties are larger than the bonuses you can get from a feat (since you choose the feats which help you most and the flaws which hurt you least).

D&D flaws are beyond stupid, now rolemaster flaws these are really nasty (you roll which flaw you get) I was mortally afraid of water and a friend got such a strong nosebleed if he got above a certain altitude that he basically could not do anything anymore :smallwink:

In d&d it´s basically x free feats for no loss at all, would not allow it as a dm.
Maybe for >= t4 classes

[Optimystik]

large text!"

The goggles, they do nothing :smallwink:
Point taken, though why would you bother with the others if you're getting that?

[jiriku]

The goggles, they do nothing :smallwink:
Point taken, though why would you bother with the others if you're getting that?

This is Lycanthromancer you're talking to. He's the man who took Overkill out back, shot it three times in the head, backed over it repeatedly with his truck, cast its feet in concrete and threw it in the ocean, then threw darts at its portrait just for good measure. :smalltongue:

[Optimystik]

This is Lycanthromancer you're talking to. He's the man who took Overkill out back, shot it three times in the head, backed over it repeatedly with his truck, cast its feet in concrete and threw it in the ocean, then threw darts at its portrait just for good measure. :smalltongue:

See now, you're just trying to get into his sig :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Both interpretations are plainly possible.
OK, answer me this: how does your interpretation (only one swap possible) make D&D a better game?

[Optimystik]

OK, answer me this: how does your interpretation (only one swap possible) make D&D a better game?

"Better" is far too subjective for any form of meaningful discussion.

If you or anyone else wants to swap 3 domains out for feats, I'm hardly going to show up at your gaming table and rap your knuckles with a ruler.

[Hendel]

Which is why I take Murky-Eyed, 'cuz I like taking Mindsight, Life Sense, and touchsight. :smallbiggrin:

Mindsight is a feat I found in Lords of Madness, Touchsight is a psionic power, and I see Life Sense in the Libris Mortis.

I guess my question is how would someone normally quallify for Lifesense as you need to have a dash in the place of your Con score. I see undead as being a quick route that way, but was there something else I am missing? I guess some of the golems and other creatures have no Con.

On the other hand, if you qualified for Mindsight (ie you had telepathy), then I could see why you want Touchsight as well. You first sense soemthing near, so you manifest Touchsight to get the exact location. Doesn't seem like overkill to me.

[Lycanthromancer]

Mindsight is a feat I found in Lords of Madness, Touchsight is a psionic power, and I see Life Sense in the Libris Mortis.

I guess my question is how would someone normally quallify for Lifesense as you need to have a dash in the place of your Con score. I see undead as being a quick route that way, but was there something else I am missing? I guess some of the golems and other creatures have no Con.

On the other hand, if you qualified for Mindsight (ie you had telepathy), then I could see why you want Touchsight as well. You first sense soemthing near, so you manifest Touchsight to get the exact location. Doesn't seem like overkill to me.Psicrystals get feats and a -- for a Con score. As do necropolitans.


This is Lycanthromancer you're talking to. He's the man who took Overkill out back, shot it three times in the head, backed over it repeatedly with his truck, cast its feet in concrete and threw it in the ocean, then threw darts at its portrait just for good measure. :smalltongue:I like this description. :smallamused:


See now, you're just trying to get into his sig :smalltongue:I'd do that, but I don't much care for ego-pads, unfortunately. Sorry, jiriku.

[Endarire]

Typically, a character takes flaws to penalize aspects he'll rarely use. When forced to use this suboptimal aspect, he's even more likely to fail.

I allow 1 flaw for an extra feat, but I've also redone many feats to make them worth taking.