The game's design generally frowns on the idea of items granting feat slots, and to a lesser extent specific feats (although a handful of items do).
I think that's fine, but forget that for the present discussion.
Let's say I wanted players to be able to pay GP to acquire feats. You can think about them as feat-granting items, or maybe that they're paying for the training, whatever.
What would be a fair price? I think the answer is probably: "depends on the feat"... but what kind of heuristics would you use to make this a fair process?
The game's design generally frowns on the idea of items granting feat slots, and to a lesser extent specific feats (although a handful of items do).
I think that's fine, but forget that for the present discussion.
Let's say I wanted players to be able to pay GP to acquire feats. You can think about them as feat-granting items, or maybe that they're paying for the training, whatever.
What would be a fair price? I think the answer is probably: "depends on the feat"... but what kind of heuristics would you use to make this a fair process?
I suppose the answer to this question is sorta contingent upon the amount of treasure/loot that the players will have access to over the course of the campaign.
You could price feat slots based on the level that the PC was at. Maybe a multiplier similar to the pricing for scrolls/wands. Or even better, tie it to the Character Wealth By Level table in the CRB. Something along the lines of a % of the wealth figure for a feat slot.
So if your % factor is say 20%, then for a 4th level feat slot, you'd charge 20% of 6000GP (from the CWBL table) = 1200GP.
Also, if the core issue here is feat slot scarcity, then you could just give people feats for free. Lots of GMS give away free feats such as the Vital Strike feat chain (at the appropriate levels), Weapon Finesse, Point Blank Shot etc.
Assume the default Character-Wealth-By-Level table is adhered to rigorously. This means you would be buying feats from the same GP pool as gear.
I basically want to know what the "gear value" of a feat is... this could mean pricing includes slotless premiums, unbreakable/undispellable advantages, or a price for the "unlocking" of later feats in the chain. It may very well differ by feat, and it's not crazy to factor the player's class in or anything like that. I want to get a good picture of the value of a feat.
I'll post my own ideas on pricing later, but I'm really curious to see how other people would do it without my bias.
If the feat has effects that could be duplicated with regular magic item creation rules (e.g. grants bonus to certain rolls) then those rules could be followed. Otherwise I would ask at least 5 thousands for very specialized feat and 10 thousands or more for moderately useful feats.
|
I mean, to a lesser extent that exists; skill focus items run in the 2000-3000ish range (lens of detection and stealth armor), improved critical is a +1 enhancement, deflect arrow is a +1 enhancement, etc.
Really it depends on if it "fully" occupies the slot or not, and what the prerequisites for the feat would otherwise be.
Given a cost-benefit analysis, I'd let a player "mod" on one feat that made sense per slot that had no non-level prereqs at around 3000gp + (150gp*l^2, l being the level you would be allowed to qualify for the feat). So Improved crit would be (3000 + (150*64), or 12,600 gp). Feats with more prereqs would cost more; if it actually took up the WHOLE item slot it would cost about half of that.
I'll post my own ideas on pricing later, but I'm really curious to see how other people would do it without my bias.
If I were to do something like this, I wouldn't do it by class, but by character, really. This is pretty strongly gamist, so I'd approach it mostly from that angle, though roleplay would have an effect.
(this is assuming they "learn the feat via training" and not by random magic bauble they wear)
I would categorize the character according to the task/role they are trying to be used for. "Martial, Skilled, Controller" and the like. I would then try to develop a set of base-line heuristics for what bonuses to certain character stats should be, probably close to the high end of what is "acceptable."
I would only really include bonuses that can't be "removed" easily- so basic attributes, base attack bonus, base saves, skill ranks, feat bonuses, and maybe some gear I really don't expect them to be without, such as armor or a masterwork weapon. Stat boosts from magic items, weapon/armor enchantments, or magic-modifying items might be ignored.
The base cost would likely be based on three things- the "usefulness" of the bonus in question (to-hit, damage, and HP bonuses for a martial character would be primary, while saves, AC, and CMB secondary, skills tertiary), the level of the character (wealth by level concerns), and how high above the baseline they are going to end up after "getting" the feat. If the bonus could be lost- say, training that you forget if you don't keep it up, a magic potion of someone else's memories that fade away, or the like- the cost would go down greatly.
If the character is below the baseline metrics, they probably shouldn't have to pay so much to get to where they "ought" to be. The higher they are above it already, the harder it is to get something to push you farther. For verisimilitude justification, it's easier to teach an average student than a talented prodigy, or to procure teaching magics that will have an effect on someone so set in their already successful ways.
Many of the feats that don't actually involve numbers are already highly subjective and therefore don't benefit from blanket rules anyway (Whirlwind Attack, Blind-Fight, Stand Still, etc). Some of the feats that do something to apply a penalty (rapid shot) have somewhat hidden heuristics- Rapid Shot would act to increase damage, so DPS calculation could be used.
If you are considering using something like this, it would be a mixed blessing to make the heuristics transparent to the players. On one hand, they could do calculations to find out what feats they want to try to buy, and which ones to "take normally" and avoid WBL costs for their highest increases. On the other hand, someone might need to change their character's "role" to avoid conflicting with another character (perhaps an archer and a controller not mixing well), and could make legitimate use of the heuristics for that purpose.
As far as actually pinning numbers on it, I can't say I could hazard a guess that would be meaningful for others (so many house rules and homebrew material).
We actually do this in our game and these are the general rules we follow:
Feats with no prerequisites cost 10k.
Feats with the prerequisite of specific class features cost 10% less.
Feats with the prerequisite of a specific race or racial feature cost 10% less.
Feats with skill prerequisites cost 10% more, no matter how many ranks or skills are required.
Feats with the prerequisites of other feats cost 25% more for each requisite feat. (A feat with two requisite feats costs 50% more than a normal feat.)
Feats with BAB or CL requirements cost 10% more for every 5 points of BAB or CL it requires. (+1 - +5 BAB costs +10%, +6 - +10 BAB costs +20%, etc.)
Ability score requirements do not increase the cost.
Metamagic and Item Creation feats cost double.
All other prerequisites are ad hoc priced, usually +/- 10%, as determined by the GM.
All modifiers are added together first, then multiplied by the base cost.
You still have to meet all the requirements of the feat you want to select. You can't just take Spring Attack for 16,000; you have to have already earned or purchased Dodge and Mobility, have a Dex of 13 and a BAB of +4.
Gaining a feat can only be done when the GM declares a significant downtime and training to gain the feat takes at least a month.
They may not be the best rules (they honestly don't get used that often and therefore aren't that well playtested) but they work for us. Usually someone just occasionally picks up an additional feat here or there, but at most two or three over an entire career.
((n+1)^2)*1000, where n is the number of feats already acquired through this process.
so 1000, 4000, 9000, etc.
edit: prerequisites have to be respected of course, this is just like getting a feat through level progression.
Great feedback from everyone, thanks!
Richard - I rather that last suggestion as a base, since it works with the WBL to create a situation where a character never has too many extra feats proportionate to character level.
I think the next step is to start going through the core feats and assigning prices to them. On pricing trick I have considered is a "pre-req surcharge" — that is, you can buy a feat but if you want to use it to unlock a later feat in the chain, you have to pay a little extra at that time.
But that's just busywork, in the end. Feats are, by and large, less powerful than items, and most of them come with a tradeoff that's quite difficult to price. I think it would work to just keep the number of bought feats to a few, relative to level (maybe no more than you have "real" feats, or half as many).
There are many approaches. I'll be working on this for a long time to come, and I'd love any input.
((n+1)^2)*1000, where n is the number of feats already acquired through this process.
Emphasis mine. Could it produce better results if the pricing used the total number of character feats? That creates some weird interactions with classes that get bonus feats, and makes the order of purchase relevant to auditing WBL — two things I don't want. But still, the result might be more balanced against WBL.
Good luck. This is something that interests me, so I'll be watching.
Because the function of WBL gets steeper as you level, would allow a character who scrimped and saved every copper piece for a feat to get one extra feat every two levels (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th) until 13th level, at which he could afford twice as many feats per level (1 per level until 20th).
This is extreme-case analysis, where the character spends literally every copper on extra feats. Such a character would have 13 extra feats by 20th level, but be completely destitute as far as other gear.
I'm not sure what this means.
I would be very very cautious about allowing this option. You really want to impose a limit on just how many feats deep pockets can buy.
Thanks for the words of caution. I'm okay with experimenting here. Of course you would want to playtest.
In practice, the generic feat slot price suggested by Richard Leonhart would be pretty balanced. Nobody is going to want to spend half their wealth on feats along, since gear actually does the job better with no tradeoff in most cases. Having 13 extra feats at 20th means you haven't got a single piece of stat-boosting gear, nor save boosting gear, nor magic armor nor weapons. Such a character would have the remarkable bragging rights of "most feats evar" but would actually be quite pathetic.
I'm interested in trying generic slot pricing, but I'm also still interested in specific feat pricing too.
I'm not interested at all in how this reacts with the "economy" such as it is. I don't care if a noble has 20,000,000gp, I'm looking at the WBL chart solely because Challenge Rating accounts for WBL. If it puts your mind at ease, it's not actual GP. If you want a "rule" I would make a hard and fast cap that you can't outspend your WBL on this kind of thing, even if you're filthy rich. If you're 4th level and you have 20k, you can only spend 6k on feats, and use the rest to buy a mansion.
Changing the formula to Means that Joe Crazyfeat would only ever be able to afford an extra feat per 3 levels, for a total of 7 extra feats by 20th. That seems more "right" to me, but we're still talking about the most extreme spender (who is really wasting a bunch of money)... so maybe that's too steep.
Still I like that the extreme possible purchased feats is always less than the number of standard feats.
So, pricing feats specifically, we can start with all those +2 to 2 skills feats, which by my math are "worth" 800gp, not counting their slotless, undispellable advantages.
5k per "feat item" plus another 5 k per prerequisite feat.
Point blank shot = 5k
Precise shot =10k, but mechanically includes the point blank shot feature.
Feat items do not stack with the same feat.
It's not perfect system, but it's been a workable rule of thumb.
I don't understand what you are paying for... a trainer?
If you can pay for it, someone could give it for free. Why not just let the pcs all spend 1000 gold to live at the inn for a year and trade all their feats to each other?
Totally abstract right now. I'm working on a specific rule that would allow GMs to award some or all of WBL as personal advancement instead of GP – potentially with transparency between the two. The intention is to allow GMs to scale the role that gear plays in a given campaign without scrapping encounter balance metrics altogether, and also to allow players in default-gear-level campaigns the ability to roll out a "vow of poverty" type PC in a balanced way.
WBL gives us a general ballpark of power that the player can control in the form of gear. I'm looking at ways to divorce those mechanical rewards from "gear" in a scalable way, from no-magic settings to hybrid settings where some characters derive power from gear and others from internal sources.
The reason I didn't explain this in the first post is that it all hinges on values being "balanced as gear". That is, I don't want any character rewards that would be unbalanced if they were (approximately) slotless magic items.
So no, you're not paying for a "trainer" necessarily, although that's not a bad interpretation. You're taking an amount of your WBL as is calculated into CR assumptions, and using it for "free advancement" not unlike Karma from Shadowrun or XP from pretty much any modern RPG with an a la carte advancement system. (still with levels, though, this is NOT point-purchase advancement. I'm crazy, not crazy.)
Because WBL is very strictly enforced, and not necessarily treated as physical wealth, I'm not concerned with the in-game logic of paying Gold for personal power. I'm just interesting in using WBL to ballpark encounter balance so that I can add non-traditional rewards at the expense of a decrease in gear rewards.
If it seems just a bit steep, then it's probably just right.
I'm inclined to agree. I'm happy to "call it a day" on the generic feat-slot pricing with that formula, unless someone wants to bring new ideas to light. I'll try to playtest that formula.
I'm going to use a different campaign to playtest a "individually priced feats" method, so any input people have on individual feat pricing is great. That's a really tough problem, though.
SKR's rule of thumb on feat training was 3 feats = 1 level of xp, + training time.
basically since a feat could give you +1 Th, +1 to saves, and +to hit points, that was about the equal of a level.
==Aelryinth
@LazarX
to change per this process to anything else isn't very good, you screw over the fighter, and the worst problem is that a character that starts later (because his previous character died) he can first buy feats, then count his feats from class or something. So you need to have a lot of additional rules.
for the steeper increase of WBL after lvl 13. Well my formula was only a guess, and I don't play that high level very much.
First you have to ask yourself, will players really buy that many feats.
Then, the items with progression have the same square progression, so why does it work there?
If it still is a problem then just change it to:
(n+1+n/5)^2 * 1000, n/5 rounded down, so there is a significant bumb every 5 feats. If it doesn't seem balanced, change 5 to either 4 or 6.
Glad I could help.
Prestige class unlocking too, that's another "hidden" bonus of a feat vs and item.
To collect them feats are/could be:
Slotless
Undispellable
Unlocking other feats
Unlocking PrCs
Anything else I'm missing?
Thanks for the enthusiasm, everyone!
Insanely helpful, thanks Austin!
EDIT: Just on first blanch, I'd consider replacing the *1000 part of the generic slot formula with *(Feat Points*100). That cheapens up some of the weaker feats, and jacks up the price on the better ones, but not exponentially.
So, using my own campaign and my subjective judgement, a group of 12th level characters would probably at this point have invested in 1-3 purchased feats at that price.
That is, everyone who felt feat starved. A Fighter would probably have better things to spend on.
allowing anyone to take feats further devalues the main shtick of the fighter. the best way to do this is actually to offer feats to the non-magic classes (rogue and fighter) for REDUCED COST...5% per level, or something, showing training and dedication and not reliance on magic at work.
==Aelryinth
changing the formula to featpoints*100 brings a problem:
buying two-weapon fighting first, then run is much cheaper than switched around.
To circumvent this problem you somehow have to multiply the total cost of feats, and not sum it up.
Or you could recalculate the whole thing using the new average feat points.
This of course if you fear optimizers. If not, everything is fine.
allowing anyone to take feats further devalues the main shtick of the fighter. the best way to do this is actually to offer feats to the non-magic classes (rogue and fighter) for REDUCED COST...5% per level, or something, showing training and dedication and not reliance on magic at work.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. I think the rising tide would raise all boats, you know? Plus the fighter gets fighter-only feats as well.
But really, this isn't about just allowing people to buy feats. Having a somewhat-accurate GP value for a feat counted against WBL has a number of applications beyond simply buying feats.
For example, I am slightly concerned that Prestige Point awards (From ISM and the Faction Guide) might build up to be a considerable effect on encounter balance. Figuring out what they "cost" in GP allows you to treat Prestige Awards like gear for WBL, and that brings us back into functional CR calculation. If the party is over WBL (because of prestige awards) then you have an idea of how much you need to increase CR.
Likewise, some APs (Serpent's Skull) award traits for RP reasons. There's not reason these traits should be omitted from encounter balance, either! If you could count the traits against WBL reliably, then you can balance encounters more accurately. An individual trait may not matter much, but if the players are collecting ten, twenty different non-gear bonuses, it starts to add up to a considerable amount of power.
So the primary goal here isn't making magic items that grant feats, or even to allow players to buy feats (although balance there would imply a stable system). It's really so that a GM can be comfortable handing out non-gear advancement and knowing how that will interact with CR. Since feat-like awards exist already, I'm not hurting the fighter, I'm just bringing all those rewards under WBL accounting.
ok, here comes the formula:
[Sum(#FP)]^3 * [2-(#F/lvl)]
FP are the featpoints, you sum them up, all you've bought so far
F are the number of feats you got from class, race, lvl, but not bought.
You have to write down how much you paid all in all for all bought feats, then you have to use the formula to calculate the new total and substract what you've paid so far,
So the more you have, the cheaper new ones will be, thus the fighter still has more feats than the rest.
The cubic is to prevent featbloat at later levels, as wealth by level become more than square at lvl 13, of course you could use that 1/5 increment I used before if cubic is too much.
And as you sum it up, it doesn't matter what you buy first and last.
Edit: if the player can freely choose their feats "bought", the fighter is at a disadvantage. Rewarding (crap) feats is a nice thing, but in my opinion loot should always be more important, it's like someone thanking you very much and giving you good advice (never piss against the wind) and someone giving you 100 bucks. But those feats should be well below 10 feat points, like run, skill focus: swim, or whatever.
changing the formula to featpoints*100 brings a problem:
buying two-weapon fighting first, then run is much cheaper than switched around.
To circumvent this problem you somehow have to multiply the total cost of feats, and not sum it up.Or you could recalculate the whole thing using the new average feat points.
This of course if you fear optimizers. If not, everything is fine.
I disagree with Sean's pricing of two-weapon fighting, but this isn't the place to hash that out.
You're right that it encourages a purchasing order. I'm not too worried about that, though. I'd probably rule that you should calculate the least expensive option for any WBL audit. That saves the optimizers the trouble.
For example, if I had a 11 point feat and a 6 point feat, I would calculate the 11 point feat first for WBL even if I technically bought it second. This presume that it's a GM-award and not an actual purchase, obviously (where the player would actually pay less!)
It's true that everybody is going to get a break with more feats.
But the ability of a Melee class to abruptly start taking multiple feat lines in the Combat line without sacrificing general feats basically destroys the fighter's shtick.
There is a limit to what you can gain in versatility...the Fighter already demonstrates. Basically you're going to give away the whole of a fighter's versatility...and the fighter will fractionally gain more?
Could the fighter turn around and start learning rage powers? Ki Powers? Sneak attack and rogue talents?
That's what you have to think about. just because people already gain feats is no reason to impose on the fighter...unless you are willing to let the fighter impose on THEM.
I see and understand your reasoning. But honestly, the only class that should be able to learn more feats is the fighter, and maybe the rogue. I'd probably let a mage learn more crafter feats...the biggest restrictions on crafting are time and money, not the feats (you can buy magic items that give the feats).
I'd consider giving other classes to broaden their own talents before I gave more to all of them and took away from the fighter.
A cleric or druid needs nothing. Maybe let them earn knowledge skills to reflect scholarly leanings, and to reflect the learned nature clergy are supposed to have.
Let the paladin learn more mercies that she might otherwise have to give up...or something from the archetypes.
Let Barbs learn more rage powers.
Let Monks learn more ki powers.
Let Rogues learn more rogue talents.
Let the mage learn crafter feats...he can already buy more spells.
Let the sorc learn more metamagic feats.
Let fighters earn more feats and powers from archetypes.
Remember, letting other classes what one class has devalues that class. Giving every class a caster level and the ability to use wizard spells devalues the wizard. If they can add clerical spells, it devalues the priests.
Or to put it another way, if the fighter was the only class that could take feats AT ALL, except for bonus feats from other classes, think of how much more valuable feats would become because of their rarity. That's what ki pools and rage rounds and rogue talents can do...but all those classes can grab feats, but the fighter can't do the same back.
Exclusivity is one of the hallmarks of power. Fighters are already so generic because anyone can raid their shtick. Well, you are basically allowing people to go to war on their shtick. Might as well allow the Sorc to start swapping out spells everyday, etc.
Unlimited Str is one of the things that really destroyed the dominance of the Melee classes in the move to 2E. Once damage and TH became easy to get, combine with multiple attacks available to everyone...Melees Lost Exclusivity.
So, keep the Fighters exclusive...or make the other classes Less Exclusive and acknowledge you are blurring the lines.
And then give Fighters a bonus on learning abilities from other classes! No doubt he'll find it more useful then just grabbing more feats.
==Aelryinth
Like I said, Aelryinth, putting a price on the feat doesn't mean letting anyone buy it. You're just saying what a feat is worth in WBL, in case you award a specific feat or something as a GM and you want it in the encounter balance math.
I'm not concerned about larger balance issues like the fighter's schtick because in theory I'm not going to the players and saying "you can buy feats, go nuts." But I do believe that the math should be balanced against the value of the feats, so if someone chose to do that (fighter schtick be damned) it should come out about right.