Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

One feat per level!


Skills & Feats


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

So, by now we've all heard that Monte Cook is joining the Pathfinder team as a rules consultant. Woo hoo!

It's in the spirit of that announcement that I think Pathfinder should adopt one of the best - and simplest - new rules from his Book of Experimental Might: characters should each gain one feat per level. This is in addition to whatever other feats they'd get from race, class, etc. One feat at each and every level for all characters (and NPCs and monsters too).

Pathfinder seems to be leaning in that direction anyway, since it already prescribes one feat at every other level. I say, go all the way with that and do as Monte does!

Who's with me? :D

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

No... I've always felt that one feat per level was too much.. besides, Monte's book didn't get any playtesting... just because it's in there, doesn't mean it's a good idea when you actually play with it. ;)

Andoran

The Pathfinder Fighter DOES get a feat every level. What more could you ask?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Arnim Thayer wrote:
The Pathfinder Fighter DOES get a feat every level. What more could you ask?

A feat every level naturally, and fighter bonus feats at level one and every even level thereafter?

Hey, if it's good enough for Monte then it's good enough for me! ^_^


I like one feat every second. I think one every level may be too much although I haven't actually tried it.

Osirion

I think the pathfinder way is fine. 1 feat every to levels isn't bad at all 1 per level would be way to much...fighter with 30 feats ....ugh


I have done this and I will say it's a bit much. It got to the point people didn't really care what feats they got and seemed to run out of feats that they really wanted. I also had alot of rp problems, "When did you learn how to X?" "Ummm...I needed to pick something..."

It was nice having all the feats you wanted but it was just too much. The fighter was almost a meaningless class because of this, barbarians with a feat at every level are scary.

Fizz.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Fizzban wrote:
The fighter was almost a meaningless class because of this barbarians with feats at every level is scary

No kidding, after a 3.5 barbarian gets all the combat related feats he needs, it's extra rage over and over again and he basically can rage and use all the rage feats without worrying about running out of rage.

Lots of Extra Turnings + darn I forget the feat.. it lets you substitute turn attempts in place of level increases from applying metamagic to spells. Clerics get disgusting when they can Empower and Maximize spells for free.


I like the 1 feat every 2, it works fine. One every level is just too much powergaming for my taste, and I can handle a lot ;P


Not to mention, Monte mentions in the Book of Experimental Might that you have to rework monsters and NPCs to balance this out, or else everything is out of whack.

As it stands, in my campaign so far, most of my adventures that I wrote before Pathfinder have worked pretty much as they should, and especially at lower levels, a monster or NPC missing out on one or two feats doesn't drastically alter an encounter, but not having half the feats you are entitled too? That would really skew an encounter against the NPC or monster, and that would mess with backwards compatibility.

That having been said, some of the fighter feats from the Book of Experimental Might II seem like they would work just fine in Pathfinder (though not so much for the double feats or uberfeats). I love the idea of the Oblation feats, and accept attack was pretty cool as well.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thinking about it, would it be bad to have it as an option, similar to the point buy chart? Feat per level for high power, feat every two for average, feat per three for low power?


I've been using this variant. It breaks the game. Sudden Metamagic feats and Divine feats are totally abused with this variant. Plus everyone - absolutely everyone - ends up with Improved Initiative.

Qadira

1 feat every 2 seems to work as the compromise. It encourages flavour without overpowering the game.


A Feat every level only works when you're not gaining class abilities (or when class abilities are Feats), which is why it works out so well for the Fighter (Feats are the Fighter's class ability). True20 does one Feat per level, but that includes all of what would be your class abilities.


One feat every level is too much power gaming for me. One feat every other level is an acceptable compromise. Although even a feat every other level, Paizo drifts a bit farther away from 3.5 fundamentals.

Osirion RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Big Bucket wrote:
I like one feat every second. I think one every level may be too much although I haven't actually tried it.

I agree. I've always thought that 1/3 levels for feats was very restrictive in creating some (notice I said some) types of character concepts (and no I am not talking about uber-power gaming monstrosities that decimate all foes, I am talking about the rules backing up a story driven character). I think one every level is too much and I have wanted to see 1/2 levels for a while now so I am happy! =)

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
baldwin the merciful wrote:
One feat every level is too much power gaming for me. One feat every other level is an acceptable compromise. Although even a feat every other level, Paizo drifts a bit farther away from 3.5 fundamentals.

My gaming crew and I have been house-ruling feats at every odd level since 3.0, and it doesn't unbalance the game too much. You end up with 3 extra feats by 20th level. I posted it on the forum here some years ago.


Im using the feat avery level, and no I dont think it is too much, most of all if u have all that MOL of books to chose from.


As a player the idea of a feat every level has definite appeal. Particularly, in a game with a low instance of magical items/treasure.

As a DM wanting to run a relatively unmodified purchased adventure it makes me cringe just a little.

I think it may be going too far for ease of backwards compatibility, and therefore out of scope for Pathfinder.


Take a 10th level/Hit Dice creature in 3.5 . . . it will have 4 feats. That same creature will have 5 feats in Pathfinder . . . if you ran a published adventure "as is," the NPC or monster is only missing one feat.

Under the Book of Experimental Might rules, that same monster is missing 5 (!) feats. That means its working at a severe disadvantage. What's more, if you wanted to "upgrade" the NPC or monster to Pathfinder, you find one feat and add its effects in. If you wanted to convert the creature over to BOXM standards, you have to pick out five feats, each one with some kind of effect on the stat block beyond the inclusion of the feat.

The Book of Experimental Might is a fun book, but its a "closed system" concept. Its meant to be added to the core rules (PH, DMG, MM) and just those rules, and as others have pointed out in this thread, when you try to add it to an "open" system of more options, it become harder to utilize.

Pathfinder is meant to be an "open system," where you can plug in anything from 3.5 and have it work (at least, insofar as it actually worked in 3.5, since, well, some things just . . . didn't).


Here's a house rule that I was formulating but haven't got a chance to implement yet: You get a "minor feat" every level you don't get a major feat.

Minor Feats: The three +2 to saving throw feats, all of the you get +2 bonus to X and Y, Toughness, possibly the Skill Focus feats too.

Major Feats: All others.

This gives the player more choices, less boring level ups, etc without overpowering anything much, and makes a lot of feats that have never seemed worth it a new life.
Yes, you ought to give it to monsters too, which is kind of a problem. I suggest just give them all the saving throw bonuses and then 3 more hps for each remaining one.

This is a 3.5 house rule. I haven't checked if all these feats still exist in PF.

Andoran

The extra feats (three, total) do not seem to unbalance the game at all. I have found it to be fair considering the glut of feats produced by WoTC during short tenure of 3.X. Some feats (such as Divine feats, Bardic Music feats, etc) never seem to see game play otherwise, in favor of power feats such as Improved Initiative, Practiced Spellcaster, the Sudden feats and Reserve feats. And adding class bonus feats as Pathfinder has done similarly does not unbalance either; for most core classes, they were a part of class progression. The Ranger receives Track, Endurance, three through the Combat Style tree... all by 11th level. The Monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike, and three bonus feats before 6th level.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
KnightErrantJR wrote:
The Book of Experimental Might is a fun book, but its a "closed system" concept. Its meant to be added to the core rules (PH, DMG, MM) and just those rules, and as others have pointed out in this thread, when you try to add it to an "open" system of more options, it become harder to utilize.

This isn't, in fact, the case. Monte himself says that it's meant to be used with third-party supplements, specifically referring to the greater number of feats:

The Book of Experimental Might wrote:
To many, it may seem that granting a feat every level is too generous. And, in truth, if you’re only using the Core Rules, it may be. But with all the many, many feats available now in various supplements (including this one!) it seems more reasonable.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashkecker wrote:

Here's a house rule that I was formulating but haven't got a chance to implement yet: You get a "minor feat" every level you don't get a major feat.

Minor Feats: The three +2 to saving throw feats, all of the you get +2 bonus to X and Y, Toughness, possibly the Skill Focus feats too.

Major Feats: All others.

This gives the player more choices, less boring level ups, etc without overpowering anything much, and makes a lot of feats that have never seemed worth it a new life.
Yes, you ought to give it to monsters too, which is kind of a problem. I suggest just give them all the saving throw bonuses and then 3 more hps for each remaining one.

This is a 3.5 house rule. I haven't checked if all these feats still exist in PF.

I think Feat progression is fine as per Pathfinder Alpha.

Though the minor/major feat categorisation you mention sounds like a nice house-rule, kind of in the spirit of the bonus Background feats Paizo writes into their adventure path players guides.


Alzrius wrote:


This isn't, in fact, the case. Monte himself says that it's meant to be used with third-party supplements, specifically referring to the greater number of feats:

You got me. I forgot about that passage. I still took that more as an invitation to add in material such as those from Monte's other books, rather than material from WOTC's splatbooks, for example.

In general, what I meant to convey is that the BOXM was more about tweaking the core for fun and seeing it if worked than creating an alternative 3.5 system that is intended to be backwards compatible, which is what Pathfinder is shooting for.


DarkWhite wrote:


Though the minor/major feat categorisation you mention sounds like a nice house-rule, kind of in the spirit of the bonus Background feats Paizo writes into their adventure path players guides.

Actually, about half of me thinks that Pathfinder should pick about 5 rules that they really want to change, like turning, and CMB, and make the initial book really conservative. Then publish all the cool ideas they had during development like the revised classes as a book of house rules like the 3e Unearthed Arcana.

As a bonus, they can sell two books instead of one. I'm sure Wizards would approve.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / Skills & Feats / One feat per level! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.