Feat-Based Class Advancement

[Paleomancer]

After reading through Epic 6 and its reliance on feats for level 6+ advancement, I was curious to know what people would feel about a system that relied entirely on obtaining feats in place of levels. Currently working with 3.5 rules, but potentially would change the skill set. This is more because those with whom I play (on occasion) take too long to make new characters, and I wanted a quick and easy system that took some of the character creation time out, but allowed people to be creative if they wanted later on.

My idea is that you'd begin play as the equivalent of a low-level character (I was thinking maybe 3rd-4th level), and that you'd make a normal character in the normal way. However, instead of gaining further levels, you would instead gain access to feats (including those that might increase hit points, skill points [but not skill cap], as well as other combat feats).

The hoped-for advantage of the system, particularly if the feats are more broad, would be to quickly build characters that don't necessarily fit into a narrow level-based systems, but the disadvantage might be a lack of meaningful power increase, and a specific low-level-limit could be a hindrance.

I was thinking more generic classes for the background: Adept, Expert,Warrior-types. Two related ideas would be expanding social interactions as an arena of combat, and perhaps finding a more elegant solution to vancian magic. I do like the idea of 5e cantrips and rituals, and the option of any class getting access to them with the right Feats.

What do you think? Problems? Potential? Thanks in advance!

[rferries]

but the disadvantage might be a lack of meaningful power increase, and a specific low-level-limit could be a hindrance.

This was my first thought, but then again that's kind of inherent to E6 already? (I've never played it)

Two related ideas would be expanding social interactions as an arena of combat

This strikes me as a very appealing idea! Something that could even be carried over to 3.5 - Diplomacy is already broken, so it would be good to replace it with something balanced.

[Anymage]

What you're describing gets close to point buy character building, which tends to encourage the opposite of quick and easy.

How much do your players enjoy the build minigame? If they like it and you trust them to do the work on their own time, being able to dig through books and mix n' match all the various elements is something that 3.5 deliberately built towards. If they think it's too much overhead, you'll want to look for ways to reduce the amount of build complexity.

[Lacuna Caster]

I was thinking more generic classes for the background: Adept, Expert,Warrior-types. Two related ideas would be expanding social interactions as an arena of combat, and perhaps finding a more elegant solution to vancian magic. I do like the idea of 5e cantrips and rituals, and the option of any class getting access to them with the right Feats.

More elaborate dialog mechanics are something I've been thinking about myself. Not sure how adaptable they'd be, but BW's duel of wits rules are available here, if you wanted to take a look.

I agree with Anymage that this is basically inching toward GURPS-style buy-whatever-you-like style of chargen, but given the plethora of multiclass and regular feat options I'm not sure that 3e is really appreciably more elegant. And if you start off the PCs locked to a single class with a handful of customisation options, they should be able to explore the system gradually as they level up.

[Goaty14]

You mean a generic class system rework?

[Anonymouswizard]

After reading through Epic 6 and its reliance on feats for level 6+ advancement, I was curious to know what people would feel about a system that relied entirely on obtaining feats in place of levels. Currently working with 3.5 rules, but potentially would change the skill set. This is more because those with whom I play (on occasion) take too long to make new characters, and I wanted a quick and easy system that took some of the character creation time out, but allowed people to be creative if they wanted later on.

My idea is that you'd begin play as the equivalent of a low-level character (I was thinking maybe 3rd-4th level), and that you'd make a normal character in the normal way. However, instead of gaining further levels, you would instead gain access to feats (including those that might increase hit points, skill points [but not skill cap], as well as other combat feats).

The hoped-for advantage of the system, particularly if the feats are more broad, would be to quickly build characters that don't necessarily fit into a narrow level-based systems, but the disadvantage might be a lack of meaningful power increase, and a specific low-level-limit could be a hindrance.

I was thinking more generic classes for the background: Adept, Expert,Warrior-types. Two related ideas would be expanding social interactions as an arena of combat, and perhaps finding a more elegant solution to vancian magic. I do like the idea of 5e cantrips and rituals, and the option of any class getting access to them with the right Feats.

What do you think? Problems? Potential? Thanks in advance!

This might be of assistance.

In all seriousness, I've played in generic class systems, and they tend to work pretty well. They don't make character creation automatically easier (the opposite if anything), but they can make it faster if the problem is 'how do I represent unusual concept X' instead of 'which of 50 Feats do I want'. Their advantage is greater flexibility, e.g. you can build a 'ranger' as either a Warrior or a Rogue, or your Fighter can be a lightly armoured skirmisher, heavily armoured brute, frontline tactician, warrior scholar, or whatever you can assemble the abilities to represent.

[Lacuna Caster]

This might be of assistance.

My understanding isn't that Paleomancer is looking for a simpler series of class-progressions, he's actually looking to abolish 'levelling' in the usual sense of converting XP to levels and levels to feats/spells/BAB, etc. You'd just convert XP directly to feats/spells/BAB. If I'm getting this right.

[Paleomancer]

My understanding isn't that Paleomancer is looking for a simpler series of class-progressions, he's actually looking to abolish 'levelling' in the usual sense of converting XP to levels and levels to feats/spells/BAB, etc. You'd just convert XP directly to feats/spells/BAB. If I'm getting this right.

Sorry for the long delay, RL getting in the way

As Lacuna Caster notes, and I should have been more specific, I was thinking about essentially a “level-less” form of 3.5e. As several of you have noted, this is probably closer to point buy systems, which I’ve never really used, so I’m somewhat concerned that it might be too complicated. I think I might need to actually outline what I’m thinking, so you guys have a better idea of what I’m proposing and then can tell me “this sucks/this will be more complicated/this might be interesting but see this” type advice. I do feel that social and group dynamic “combat” would be interesting, so I might try and make a separate system for that.

The target audience (note that this includes relatives, so “find another group” is not a reasonable option):

• Members who play well, but get bored with their character easily.
• Members who play well, but just want a loose framework.
• Those who want a character in five minutes.
• Those who like off-the-wall type stuff and need adaptable framework mechanics for such antics.
• Those who hate the inherent fragility of 1st level characters and the book-keeping of higher level characters.
• Managable characters who can do more than hit things with a sword.

My overall idea:

• Generate abilities as usual (I prefer a generous array like 16/14/14/12/10/8).
• Select three to four levels of some class or classes (possibly limiting it to two classes) and add up base stats as normal. Cross-class skills are an upper limit, but one point buy for all.
• Instead of leveling, the characters periodically select a feat for which they meet prerequisites (possibly some modifications to allow certain feats normally unavailable to low-level characters). Feats like Open Minded a must to exand skill points.
• Possibly ways to gain minor talents from other classes? Minor spellcasting, etc. 5e cantrips and rituals are appealing. 5e wizards also interesting.

Adding more as I refine my proposal. Thank-you for the comments, I’ll review those and add my thoughts and appreciation for your advice.

[nineGardens]

Okay so... having spent the last couple years working on a system that follows some elements of this, but not others, I can comment on potentially some of it:

When you say "Feats only" level advancement there are sort of two things you are cutting out there: You are removing the BAB, saving throws, and HP escalation that (as I understand it) come with higher levels, and you are removing the high level class abilities. In exchange, players basically just get feats as they go up in "levels" . Also presumably no Skilling up as you go up in levels.
Have I understood this correctly?


System I've been working on for past few years is similar, in that the BAB, saving throw and HP increases with higher levels are removed- players start with HP between about 20 and 30 (dependent on race and classes) and there they stay.
Doing this makes level up a hell of a lot easier... and also avoid the need for spell and equipment escalation (A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. You don't get "Small fireball" at low levels, and up grade it to "Inferno" and "Meteor shower" or whatever as you level up).

This... takes a way a huge amount of the book-keeping, and I strongly recommend it in any game where there isn't a strong reason for state escalation.


The place where what I've been working on diverges from what you are discussing here, is that all "feats" are classlocked. In effect I kept ONLY class abilities, and ditched the class agnositc "Feats". The goal of this is to avoid the "Everyone has ten billion choices" effect that can happen with pure feat/point buy systems. Players pick three classes, each class has tenish feats, so each level up players are realisticly choosing amongst 6 or so feats that are unlocked and applicable for them at that stage of the game.
Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, is up for debate, depending on your taste in system.
By the sounds of it, if you have players that switch character fast, I would probably recommend AGAINST the multi-class system I used, as it has somewhat more expensive character building.





Oh, also:

Two related ideas would be expanding social interactions as an arena of combat

This strikes me as a very appealing idea! Something that could even be carried over to 3.5 - Diplomacy is already broken, so it would be good to replace it with something balanced.

So, can't talk too much about the mechanics, but for me the main issue with Diplomacy has always been that the skill is just too damn useful, and really deserves to be smashed up into smaller pieces.
I broke social skills up into:
People reading, Deceive, Manipulate, Command, Soothe, Persuade and Entertain.
By making each skill smaller, you make it harder for the team bard to max out EVERYTHING, and make it easier for different players to specialize in different social stats, encouraging them to "Pass the conversation ball around" when in social encounters.
You also avoid the situation of "I roll diplomacy on them" always being the answer- sure, you want to talk, but are you better off being Manipulating or Persuading them. These choices can take the conversation in very different directions.

[Lacuna Caster]

So, can't talk too much about the mechanics, but for me the main issue with Diplomacy has always been that the skill is just too damn useful, and really deserves to be smashed up into smaller pieces.
I broke social skills up into:
People reading, Deceive, Manipulate, Command, Soothe, Persuade and Entertain.
By making each skill smaller, you make it harder for the team bard to max out EVERYTHING, and make it easier for different players to specialize in different social stats, encouraging them to "Pass the conversation ball around" when in social encounters.
You also avoid the situation of "I roll diplomacy on them" always being the answer- sure, you want to talk, but are you better off being Manipulating or Persuading them. These choices can take the conversation in very different directions.

It's not at all play-tested at the moment, but I did put together a simplified duel-of-wits system in the other thread. (4 manuevers, use skills as appropriate, body of argument + compromise, etc.) I'll reproduce them here for convenience.

Spoiler

Show

All parties involved in the debate sort into teams and nominate a spokesperson. (Teams of 1 are also fine.) By default, each round, each spokesperson selects an action in secret, then reveals their actions and rolls Persuasion vs. Persuasion.

Body of Argument = 10 + character level + Cha bonus.

Point
  Make a direct statement or argument in favour of your position.
  vs. Lead, roll vs. DC of 0.  Half margin damages BoA.
  vs. Rebuttal, roll vs. opponent.  Half margin damages BoA.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half margin damages BoA.

Rebuttal
  Counter an opponent's argument with your own.
  vs. Point, roll vs. opponent.  Margin restores your BoA.
  vs. Lead, you may not test.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half Margin restores your BoA.

Lead
  Expose a weakness with a leading question or implication or two.
  vs. Rebuttal, roll vs. DC of 0.  Half margin damages BoA.
  vs. Point, you may not test.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half margin damages BoA.

Digression
  Bring in extraneous information to make an indirect point or distraction.
  Roll vs. opponent.  Spend margin on effects-
  5 points:   Add +3 to next roll of self or an ally.
  5 points:   Add 1 to your own BoA, apply -2 penalty to opponent's next roll.
  10 points:  Your opponent is engrossed and takes no action next turn.

Supporting Argument
  You agree with or back up a colleague's argument.
  Roll vs. DC of 10.
  Add 1/4 margin of success to ally's next argument.

Body of Argument Modifiers
  Terms offered are very good: +10
  Terms offered are good: +5
  Terms offered are mean: -5
  Terms offered are very mean: -10
  Subject is a soulmate: +10
  Subject is a steady ally: +5
  Subject is friendly: +2
  Subject is unfriendly: -2
  Subject is a known enemy: -5
  Subject is a nemesis: -10

Other Modifiers
  Fresh Evidence:  +4 to single roll.
  Repetition:      -4 penalty (cumulative).
  Deceit:          May roll vs. Truth Sense to lie, lose action otherwise.
  Threats/Insult:  Add +5 to roll, -2 to BoA and next roll.

[Paleomancer]

When you say "Feats only" level advancement there are sort of two things you are cutting out there: You are removing the BAB, saving throws, and HP escalation that (as I understand it) come with higher levels, and you are removing the high level class abilities. In exchange, players basically just get feats as they go up in "levels" . Also presumably no Skilling up as you go up in levels.
Have I understood this correctly?

That is exactly what I was proposing!

System I've been working on for past few years is similar, in that the BAB, saving throw and HP increases with higher levels are removed- players start with HP between about 20 and 30 (dependent on race and classes) and there they stay.
Doing this makes level up a hell of a lot easier... and also avoid the need for spell and equipment escalation (A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. You don't get "Small fireball" at low levels, and up grade it to "Inferno" and "Meteor shower" or whatever as you level up).

This... takes a way a huge amount of the book-keeping, and I strongly recommend it in any game where there isn't a strong reason for state escalation.

Pretty much what I was hoping for in my proposal. Book-keeping is fun for some, but spending an hour and a half to make new characters each time is... less than ideal.

The place where what I've been working on diverges from what you are discussing here, is that all "feats" are classlocked. In effect I kept ONLY class abilities, and ditched the class agnositc "Feats". The goal of this is to avoid the "Everyone has ten billion choices" effect that can happen with pure feat/point buy systems. Players pick three classes, each class has tenish feats, so each level up players are realisticly choosing amongst 6 or so feats that are unlocked and applicable for them at that stage of the game.
Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, is up for debate, depending on your taste in system.
By the sounds of it, if you have players that switch character fast, I would probably recommend AGAINST the multi-class system I used, as it has somewhat more expensive character building.

Nonetheless, that sounds really intriguing... a good way to preserve the essential flavor and role of a class. I might have to make a more simplified version, but that might still work, especially for people who just want to throw fireballs and stab things, and care less about mechanics. Is this something you are publishing? Sounds like you've done some extensive work here.

So, can't talk too much about the mechanics, but for me the main issue with Diplomacy has always been that the skill is just too damn useful, and really deserves to be smashed up into smaller pieces.
I broke social skills up into:
People reading, Deceive, Manipulate, Command, Soothe, Persuade and Entertain.
By making each skill smaller, you make it harder for the team bard to max out EVERYTHING, and make it easier for different players to specialize in different social stats, encouraging them to "Pass the conversation ball around" when in social encounters.
You also avoid the situation of "I roll diplomacy on them" always being the answer- sure, you want to talk, but are you better off being Manipulating or Persuading them. These choices can take the conversation in very different directions.

Interesting though. How did/might you allot skills among the classes? I definitely like the idea of a Fighter who isn't inherently a tongue-tied meathead or a Wizard who isn't an abrupt know-it-all.

It's not at all play-tested at the moment, but I did put together a simplified duel-of-wits system in the other thread. (4 manuevers, use skills as appropriate, body of argument + compromise, etc.) I'll reproduce them here for convenience.

Spoiler

Show

All parties involved in the debate sort into teams and nominate a spokesperson. (Teams of 1 are also fine.) By default, each round, each spokesperson selects an action in secret, then reveals their actions and rolls Persuasion vs. Persuasion.

Body of Argument = 10 + character level + Cha bonus.

Point
  Make a direct statement or argument in favour of your position.
  vs. Lead, roll vs. DC of 0.  Half margin damages BoA.
  vs. Rebuttal, roll vs. opponent.  Half margin damages BoA.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half margin damages BoA.

Rebuttal
  Counter an opponent's argument with your own.
  vs. Point, roll vs. opponent.  Margin restores your BoA.
  vs. Lead, you may not test.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half Margin restores your BoA.

Lead
  Expose a weakness with a leading question or implication or two.
  vs. Rebuttal, roll vs. DC of 0.  Half margin damages BoA.
  vs. Point, you may not test.
  Otherwise, roll vs. DC of 10.  Half margin damages BoA.

Digression
  Bring in extraneous information to make an indirect point or distraction.
  Roll vs. opponent.  Spend margin on effects-
  5 points:   Add +3 to next roll of self or an ally.
  5 points:   Add 1 to your own BoA, apply -2 penalty to opponent's next roll.
  10 points:  Your opponent is engrossed and takes no action next turn.

Supporting Argument
  You agree with or back up a colleague's argument.
  Roll vs. DC of 10.
  Add 1/4 margin of success to ally's next argument.

Body of Argument Modifiers
  Terms offered are very good: +10
  Terms offered are good: +5
  Terms offered are mean: -5
  Terms offered are very mean: -10
  Subject is a soulmate: +10
  Subject is a steady ally: +5
  Subject is friendly: +2
  Subject is unfriendly: -2
  Subject is a known enemy: -5
  Subject is a nemesis: -10

Other Modifiers
  Fresh Evidence:  +4 to single roll.
  Repetition:      -4 penalty (cumulative).
  Deceit:          May roll vs. Truth Sense to lie, lose action otherwise.
  Threats/Insult:  Add +5 to roll, -2 to BoA and next roll.

Forum mode set, ready... DEBATE! I like the look of this. This could accommodate a system where all three mental ability scores serve different uses - Intelligence more analytical, Wisdom insight and resilience, and Charisma force of personality.

[nineGardens]

Is this something you are publishing? Sounds like you've done some extensive work here.

Something I've been working on for a while. Is pretty close to done, but am actually currently in the process of editing/looking for critique/playtesters whatever.

There is a link to both the rulebook, and the GiTP thread in my signature (Below)
For the rulebook, I recommend hitting the "PDF" button at the top of the page and downloading, as it is easier to navigate that way.

For what YOU are interested in, I would suggest checking out the "character building" at the start (around page four), but also potentially "Comments on some design choices" (2nd to last page). Those should tell you the main things that will be useful as far as your design direction is concerned.

[Lacuna Caster]

Forum mode set, ready... DEBATE! I like the look of this. This could accommodate a system where all three mental ability scores serve different uses - Intelligence more analytical, Wisdom insight and resilience, and Charisma force of personality.

Cool. Glad to help.

Something I've been working on for a while. Is pretty close to done, but am actually currently in the process of editing/looking for critique/playtesters whatever.

There is a link to both the rulebook, and the GiTP thread in my signature (Below)...

Yeah, I had a brief look at the .pdf version. I quite like the segments on designing your own solar system at the start. I would just say the page count is a bit intimidating, though I gather most of that is devoted to class-specific rules and maneuvers?

[nineGardens]

Yeah, I had a brief look at the .pdf version. I quite like the segments on designing your own solar system at the start. I would just say the page count is a bit intimidating, though I gather most of that is devoted to class-specific rules and maneuvers?

Yeah- 16 pages rules for players, 20 pages guide for GMs and everything else is class or race specific.

... and I'm going to stop talking about this now, for fear of highjacking Paleo's thread.

[Lacuna Caster]

... and I'm going to stop talking about this now, for fear of highjacking Paleo's thread.

...you must be new here. :P