|
An idea: what if *ALL* feats would be categorised by "power type" (to give 4E examples: Combat, General, Nature, Arcane, Divine, Shadow, Primal, etc.) and each class would give you access to one or two "categories" (e.g. rangers could pick nature and combat feats and barbarians would get combat and primal)? Maybe you could get access to more "categories" by taking a "Training feat" (but only Feats meant for 1-10 level characters) and/or there could also be "Background feats" (e.g. your urban ranger could have access to Shadow feats since he spent his youth as a street urchin in a city) that would enable you to add more variety to your character's abilities? In any case, by multiclassing you would get access to more "feat categories".
And then there would be "Heritage feats" that grant you access to "fey" or "dragonic" feats and spell lists, for example? And maybe even there would be "Racial feats" that, say, only the members of that race could pick? You could also have access to some "low-level" (i.e. Feats meant for 1-10 level characters) by taking an appropriate "Cultural/Racial training"/"Background feat" ("Cultural" or Racial training" could also be simply categorized under "Background feats?).
For example, your Fey-blooded human barbarian (with access to Combat and Primal feats through his class) raised among elves could spend feats to access "Fey" feat category and also take some 1-10 level Elven "Racial Feats" (in addition to primal and combat feats, of course).
All of these elements already exist in the game (and combat feats are a new addition to PF), but they feel a bit a disorganized and somehow dysfunctional at the moment. Any thoughts? Am I going too far with this? Is this too "4E-ish"? Too complex?
|
Gah... they're doing that in 4E.
The whole idea behind PF is that it's not 4E. People who like 4E are going to change over to 4E. Pathfinder is, IMO, being designed, at least partly, for the people who don't like 4E. Bringing 4E "innovations" into PF is going to put those people off.
I don't mind change. I like what I see of PF, for the most part. I just don't think I'd be interested in some sort of 3.5/4E genetic experiment.
(I realize that there will probably be some cross-over. I just don't want my nose rubbed in it.)
|
|
Additionally, it looks like the idea is to limit availability of feats based on class. Combine that with the current PF skill system, and you'll end up with characters that are too specialized and two-dimensional. I like being able to build a wizard who takes a few combat feats to increase his ability to survive if he gets into HTH combat (or just surprise an opponent with his above-par ability with a club.
Is it optimal? No... but not everyone is, and that's the part of PRGs that I like... you can play anything you can imagine.
|
|
Gah... they're doing that in 4E.
The whole idea behind PF is that it's not 4E. People who like 4E are going to change over to 4E. Pathfinder is, IMO, being designed, at least partly, for the people who don't like 4E. Bringing 4E "innovations" into PF is going to put those people off.
I don't mind change. I like what I see of PF, for the most part. I just don't think I'd be interested in some sort of 3.5/4E genetic experiment.
(I realize that there will probably be some cross-over. I just don't want my nose rubbed in it.)
I know. But note that these elements I suggested already *do* exist in 3E -- you can take 'Draconic Heritage' or 'Fey-Blooded' feats, for example. And you can also pick Cultural/Background/Trait Feats (e.g. 'Deft Hands', Grim Visage','Cloistered upbringing', 'Raptoran Soaring Attack', etc.) for your characters.
And there already *are* Feat Categories, such as General, Combat (in PF), Item Creation, Metamagic, Tactical, etc. It's just that these ideas are scattered in a dozen book or so in a dysfunctional form. My suggestion would be to organize them in a fashion that is a bit similar to 4E's Power Sources but still essentially different from "Attack/Utility Powers". If done well, you'd not need to come up with new types of "main categories" and thus new feats would be much easier to incorporate into your game. Not to mention that this would eliminate any problems with "exception-based" design that we've seen in some splat books.
|
|
Additionally, it looks like the idea is to limit availability of feats based on class. Combine that with the current PF skill system, and you'll end up with characters that are too specialized and two-dimensional. I like being able to build a wizard who takes a few combat feats to increase his ability to survive if he gets into HTH combat (or just surprise an opponent with his above-par ability with a club.
Is it optimal? No... but not everyone is, and that's the part of PRGs that I like... you can play anything you can imagine.
Hmmm... would it be too bad if your wizard had to spend a Feat to gain access to combat feats? After all, he *does* get more Feats in PF than 3E. And if your wizard is going to take Power Attack and Weapon Focus, it should be more "hdifficult" than, say, for a Paladin or a Ranger.
Hmmm... would it be too bad if your wizard had to spend a Feat to gain access to combat feats? After all, he *does* get more Feats in PF than 3E.
Yes, I'd say so. For one thing, I think you'd be encouraging level dipping into classes with different "power sources". For another, it's discouraging quirky and colorful choices.
And if your wizard is going to take Power Attack and Weapon Focus, it should be more "difficult" than, say, for a Paladin or a Ranger.
Why should it be twice as hard for an evoker to take weapon focus (ray) than it is for a fighter to take weapon focus (sword)? Or twice as hard for a high-level druid shaped like a dire bear to use power attack than it is for a halfling fighter with 13 strength?
The feats are already suboptimal for classes outside their 'ideal' progression, because of base attack bonus, stat allocation, and the opportunity cost of combat actions. That should be enough, I think.
This reminds of something...now what was it...ah yes, cross skills. A mechanic in 3.5 that double penalized, not only can you not get the same maximum of class skills but you also have to pay twice as much for half the score.
I don't like it. Categorization of feats exist, but to limit access by class and then create feats to give access to them just doesn't make any sense.
As others have said, suboptimal choices for one class are already suboptimal. All your suggestion does is discourage outside-the-box builds.
What a mess! No, I'm flat out against this. Feats are feats, not class abilities in disguise.
If you add descriptors like [Fighter] to show that a class with bonus feats from a specialised list can take this feat as one of its bonus feats, I'm fine. But feats should remain Feats, not class Talent Trees.
It's too 4e (meaning: Not D&D enough) for me, and backward compatibility would go right out of the window, since you'd have to look up every feat and look whether you are allowed to use it now. Not to mention that there's literally thousands of feats out there for 3e that aren't designated, and it would be a pain to add labels to each.