[D&D 3.5, 4e, & Pathfinder] The Feat Famine

[Coidzor]

So we've seen a fair amount of people do feat fixes for 3.5 via homebrew, we've seen how WOTC made 4e in response to the problem, and apparently even Pathfinder has its own spin on it (though I am not currently aware of what it is)... Both in the way feats are set up and also in regards to the way/rate feats are acquired.

What do you all think of the various fixes you've encountered? Do you use any verbatim or add your own twist on them? Do you find them too jarringly different to use despite liking them in principle/theory? Do you hate them due to somehow cheapening the way things work?

What would you recommend to someone looking to try out a different feat system?

[Kurald Galain]

The main thing is this:

There are booster feats and enabler feats. Booster feats give a bonus to something you can already do, whereas enabler feats let you do something that's not allowed without the feat.

The issue is that enabler feats are potentially much better than booster feats, generally because versatility is good, and because more options give you more combos, and more powerful combos to the point of being gamebreaking. The classic example is Weapon Focus vs. Power Attack, or Spell Focus vs. Quicken Spell.

Note the word "potentially" - obviously, an enabler feat isn't useful if the option it enables isn't worth taking; and on the other hand, some booster feats give too big bonuses to avoid. Booster vs enabler goes for spells too, of course. This is why Polymorph is so powerful, it is a huge enabler spell.

4E, for instance, tried to fix this problem by avoiding enabler feats as much as possible in the early books (except for multiclass feats, widely considered among the most best feats in PHB1). However, more recent books and dragon magazine have changed that. PF has not, to my knowledge, acknowledged or attempted to fix this issue.

[Kaiyanwang]

I cannot speak for 4th edition, but for 3.5 et similia, I think that the problem could be faced by several angles.

- How feats scale: 3.5 example, dodge. 'Nuff said.

- How much feats are versatile. They are a limited resource, but most of them are not versatile enough.

Pathfinder increased the number of feats a PC can take through the levels. This is a good idea, but, at the end, 3 more feats does not change things so much.

To be fair, they improved the use of some feat (dodge in now vs every enemy, and increases CMD too; you can Vital Strike with a bow and with a greatsword with the same 1/2/3 feats. Improved maneuvers feats now increase defenses vs that maneuver too. Critical feats apply on every critical (I really FEARED they had improved critical as a prereq, instead of the crappy, but more versatile, critical focus).

Nevertheless, they could have done more, in my opinion. An answer to this, that I use at my gametable, is to be, as a DM, very open minded and flexible, and say "yes" or "yes, but with -4" to some cool maneuver or trick or whatever the players invented.

An advice about this was given in the archives, the Quickdraw feat was an example - the designer said, essentially "use if for every situation you must take something quickly". he bringed the example of taking a weapon from the wall during a situation devolved to a fight, IIRC.

One could expand this even more, maybe combining skills and feat use. As an example, if a player has improved grapple and good physical skills, I'd prefer allow him some giantfighting maneuver basing his skill roll DCs on the enemy's CMD, instead of forcing him to take a specific giant fighting feat.


Oriental adventures, introduced martial arts - they were specific bonus gained with feat combos. The idea was good, but, sadly, was badly impelmented. I'd like to see something on that line for pathfinder now.

[Eldariel]

In 3.5, I simply give players more feats and combine cruddy feats together or remove them and give the ability automatically (Body Fuel is a ****ty feat, but one I like so I simply give such an ability to every psionic character by default; I also do something similar with casters. Channeling your life energy to a spell/power is a fantasy staple and as such, I like allowing some such).

Two feats on level 1 and one feat on 2, 4, etc. along with some bonus racials (to show your growth into a paragon of your race) every 5th level and bonus Regional to start with and so on.

[Another_Poet]

apparently even Pathfinder has its own spin on it (though I am not currently aware of what it is)...

What would you recommend to someone looking to try out a different feat system?

Pathfinder solved all my feat fix problems. Progression is 1 feat every odd level instead of every 3rd level, some cooler feat options such as critical feats were offered, a few 3.5 feats were re-worded, most were left basically the same.

There are gripes people have with PF about not fixing enough stuff from 3.5 but I've never heard anyone say the PF feat system is a problem. It is pretty awesome.

ap

[Akal Saris]

I like the PF feat system, but I've heard dozens of people moan about how it ruined the Improved Grapple/Trip/Disarm/Bull Rush feats by making them each 2-part feats.

I think there need to be more early-game feats in all 3 editions though. PF's odd-numbered feat options are good in that you have more feats, but it doesn't solve the problem at low levels, where I really want Precise Shot at 1st level, not 3rd or 5th.

As a sidenote, I don't like the 4E feats very much. I'm a big fan of "enabler" feats, and 4E is very scarce on them. +2 to all defenses or another weenie +1 to hit just doesn't excite me when I level up.

[Kaiyanwang]

I like the PF feat system, but I've heard dozens of people moan about how it ruined the Improved Grapple/Trip/Disarm/Bull Rush feats by making them each 2-part feats.

IMO:

Spoiler

Show

Well, the prereqs for those feats are Power Attack, IUS and Combat Expertise. For my usual power level, these three are just fine. Maybe combat Expertise could have been improved for shields or such, but they managed to pimp shields both difensively and offensively so fair enough. Power Attack, barring the shocktrooper nerf, is just better in PF, if not for the fact that works with off-hands too.

IUS is like the old one - simply, they pimped the monk version.

Let's see the other feats of the trees.

Greater Grapple is very good for a grappler, IMO. But makes you faster, does not invalidates the grapple tatics if missing.

Greater Disarm is not recommended unless the campaing is a swashbuckling city one. In that case, I bet can be pure fun. So, is not generally a great loss.

Greater Bull Rush quite disappointed me. In 3.5 ANY bull rush caused AOOs. But they pimped BR by other means (shield fighting,barbarian powers) so I guess now you can bull rush more often and more in favor of your action economy, so...

Greater Trip is not simply the old improved trip, part II. Tripped enemies cause AOOs. If used with care to group tactics ("opportunistic" flanking rogue, paladin with aura of justice..) can be scary.

Greater Feint.. well this one depends from the group. If is usual for your fighter greater feint to make the target more vulnerable to the monk trip and the ranger and sorcer ranged attack, fair enough. If these tactics - that can be more complex than that -are not in your preferencies, just the rogue will take impr feint and goodnight.

Greater Overrun: aaaw, come one, this one could have been merged.

Moreover, people should remember that bonuses to attacks generally apply to CMB. If well played, flanking, feints, bards, and so on, can be really great on the battlefield. Bards in particular can bring a bonus to a maneuver as a big as the Improved + greater feats, or the maximum fighter weapon training... or make a feint on 18+ on a d20 become a 12+.

So, yeah, the feats could have not been splitted without affect game balance*. But say they "ruined" them is a big too much.

I may criticize it, but Pathfinder is a good game.


*To elaborare: I think that could lead to warriors more versatile, not more powerful.

[Fax Celestis]

One of d20r's many feat fixes (aside from making feats scalar according to how much you invest in them) is to promote single-classing: you gain a bonus feat at every level of your class that is divisible by 4. A single-classed character would then get feats at 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20.

[Mando Knight]

The main thing is this:

There are booster feats and enabler feats. Booster feats give a bonus to something you can already do, whereas enabler feats let you do something that's not allowed without the feat.

The issue is that enabler feats are potentially much better than booster feats, generally because versatility is good, and because more options give you more combos, and more powerful combos to the point of being gamebreaking. The classic example is Weapon Focus vs. Power Attack, or Spell Focus vs. Quicken Spell.

Note the word "potentially" - obviously, an enabler feat isn't useful if the option it enables isn't worth taking; and on the other hand, some booster feats give too big bonuses to avoid. Booster vs enabler goes for spells too, of course. This is why Polymorph is so powerful, it is a huge enabler spell.

Booster feats and enabler feats sometimes work together to scale up the output of both, though. You can't use all of the enablers at the same time, and occasionally not even all of them in the same day. If you choose a few choice enablers that you're sure to use and a couple prime booster feats that play off of those enablers, you can start to have crazy-boosted smashing ability.