I like one feat every second. I think one every level may be too much although I haven't actually tried it.
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.
|
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.
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.
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.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
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! =)
|
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.
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.
|
|
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.
|
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.
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.
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.