So the recent Crane Style revision underscores a very serious balance issue that has been bothering me for a good long while: The relative value of feats.
Feats and feat-like abilities (such as rogue talents) comprise major features of a couple classes. As compared with magical abilities, such as spells and spell slots, feats are:
1) Static. That is, one cannot change them out every day
2) Given to those classes that receive them as class features at a SLOWER rate than spells and spell slots
3) Most of the time (though not always) technically usable more times per day than spells, but more often so limited or circumstantial that reasonable opportunities only occur a couple times per day, if that.
4) Sometimes more easily combined with other actions (such as attacks and attack routines) but generally less versatile. For example, weapon focus gives you a bonus on all attacks (with a particular weapon). A summon monster spell may be used to attack the enemy, to draw enemy attacks away from others, for utility purposes, to heal, etc.
5) Often have prerequisites that are much more prohibitive than the spell level requirements for spells. Spells may have level prerequisites based on spell level, but do not generally require the caster to know other particular spells or have a certain number of skill ranks.
In short, feats represent a GREATER character investment than spells. Not spellcasting altogether perhaps, but greater than individual spells and spell slots. So WHY ON EARTH are feats so much less powerful? What is considered so unbalancing about a feat that protects a character from one melee attack per round when the user takes a particular type of action whereas a spell that literally makes an enemy your slave for hours if not days is NOT so?
EDIT: Apologies for some delays and editing. Still trying to work out my thoughts here.
