If you get a bonus feat at level 1, you have to take a feat you qualify for at 1st level.
I don't think any GM would deny you the ability to just not take a feat until later, but only if that feat would still be selectable if you were still 1st level.
Can you just not take the Feat?
False. Modrons are awesome.
It would seem to me that a player can choose to take no feat at all. The wording says "may" after all.
Granted, you're deliberately gimping your character, but Pathfinder allows for lots of suboptimal be very flavorful choices.
|
So, a featless PC somehow makes it more flavorful?
Why even level?
Who needs skill points?
What's with these "classes"? That's class warfare making me choose!
Also, who needs a race? Making me choose a race, is racist!
I am just going to RP the hell out of this semiexistual stick!
Disagree, and I will go on about how terrible a person you are!
*Shrugs* Takes all kinds.
Can't really complain too much- what if I wanted to take my character in a direction that people didn't agree with? As long as the GM is okay with it, and it's not hampering the playstyle of the group, OP's Golden.
But I have to admit Daemyn, these kinds of changes tend to change the experience of the game that the developers are trying to deliver to you. You can certainly do it, and we'll welcome you here for as long as you want to play Pathfinder... but you also might enjoy D&D 1st/2nd edition more. Possible even a different system altogether.
Feel free to modify as much as you want. And again, if a modified Pathfinder is your thing then more power to you! But you might also want to consider a more comfortable system if there are some things about this one that you don't enjoy.
The important thing is that you have fun, with whatever is most comfortable for you.
Feats are bad?
Why?
If you want some kind of houseruled featless, skillless, magicless homebrew game, there is a forum for that.
Where did I mention either Magic or Skills? I said "I think that Feats were the worst addition to the game." I like skills, I think there should be more skills, and more skill points. I think that what Feats do, should be done with skills.
I know there is a homebrew forum, and if I was suggesting a way to play the game without Feats, I would post there. I was asked a question by you, so I answered it. If you don't like my answer that is fine.
And no the post wasn't in jest. I truly believe that Feats are the worst addition to the game.
Where did I mention either Magic or Skills? I said "I think that Feats were the worst addition to the game." I like skills, I think there should be more skills, and more skill points. I think that what Feats do, should be done with skills.
I know there is a homebrew forum, and if I was suggesting a way to play the game without Feats, I would post there. I was asked a question by you, so I answered it. If you don't like my answer that is fine.
And no the post wasn't in jest. I truly believe that Feats are the worst addition to the game.
Huh, interesting. I actually think it was Skills that were the worst addition to the game. I don't mean 3rd edition style skills, however, I mean the original Rogue skills from way back. Before Rogues and their percentile skills, anyone could try anything, and either the logic of the situation or attribute checks determined success or failure.
Once skills got tossed in, Fighters couldn't sneak anymore (until 3rd when they could cross-class to get Hide and Move Silently), and that was the beginning of the "more defined rules prevent you from doing things, rather than enabling" train...