Just curious what would happen if you removed the general feat choice every odd level from the game. Just yanked them out and replaced them with nothing.
Classes that grant bonus feats still grant those feats but the general feats choice is gone.
Would it have a significant impact on play ?
Sure feats have been around forever, its a core part of your character but could you just as easily have a fun and enjoyable character without them ?
would it drastically change the relative power of classes in any significant way ?
Has anyone ever run a campaign with no feats ?
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.
It's also going to heavily screw with game balance since, well, the game is designed around the assumption of Feats.
Feats haven't been around forever. They weren't introduced until D&D had already been out for 26 years! Having played years of D&D before feats existed, I think they're a great addition to the game.
The biggest thing feats add is character customization. Without feats, no divine characters could create magic items, almost no character would have access to exotic weapons, druids would be lousy summoners, combat maneuvers would practically cease to exist, etc. Basically, the number of available character builds would be significantly reduced.
He said classes still get their bonus feats in his hypothetical scenario, just not feats at odd levels so for once Fighter would have something almost unique.
Yeah, to follow what the others have said, I started with 3e, so when I tried out AD&D (2e, I'm pretty sure), that was one of the bigger things that shook me. I never really thought much of feats, but without them, everything just seemed so... same-y. That's one of the things that I don't get sometimes when people complain about 4e feeling Homogeneous, but don't seem to lambaste AD&D for that. I didn't like 4e's formulaic class design, but at least I can make a Dwarven fighter, who's not exactly the same as every other Dwarven Fighter out there.
But I'm getting off-topic. Really, without feats, there's not much that makes a class distinct from every other member of that class (though something tells me fighters would become mighty popular all of a sudden).
So Archtypes don't change classes significantly enough to feel different without feats as well ?
From where I'm standing looks like you could make significantly different playing character from the same classes using different archetypes and class choices.
Fighters actually would blow. Hard.
Yes. Or, the result would be that they would have class features.
Fighters actually would blow. Hard.
Fighter would actually be the only class to have significant access to combat feats with their fighter bonus feats.
So Archtypes don't change classes significantly enough to feel different without feats as well ?
From where I'm standing looks like you could make significantly different playing character from the same classes using different archetypes and class choices.
For some classes that would be the case, but other classes it's not so much. Rogues, for example, don't really see much variation with their archetypes. It's mostly "Trade Trap-sense for some other benefit"
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.
If you read any of the optimization guides around here, everyone is taking the same feats anyway, so they (almost) might as well just reassigned as specific class abilities.
I might suggest a middle ground where some feats are rolled into general rules for everyone, such as all the combat maneuver feats (at least all the basic ones that take away the AoO), also Combat Expertise comes to mind, maybe a few others if I think about it, but it's your houserule so you think about it...
You might also want to think about weapon and armor proficiency feats. Most classes get zero bonus feats, and without some other way, there is absolutely no way ever, ever, for most classes to learn a new weapon (for example, a barbarian could never learn how to use an exotic weapon, well, unless maybe he was human and took it with his human bonus feat). Maybe work it in so that at every 4th level a class can choose a weapon or armor feat and learn it for free. Or maybe make them subtract a little XP for it (they trained in that feat rather than training for their next level). Just some thoughts.
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.If you read any of the optimization guides around here, everyone is taking the same feats anyway, so they (almost) might as well just reassigned as specific class abilities.
I might suggest a middle ground where some feats are rolled into general rules for everyone, such as all the combat maneuver feats (at least all the basic ones that take away the AoO), also Combat Expertise comes to mind, maybe a few others if I think about it, but it's your houserule so you think about it...
You might also want to think about weapon and armor proficiency feats. Most classes get zero bonus feats, and without some other way, there is absolutely no way ever, ever, for most classes to learn a new weapon (for example, a barbarian could never learn how to use an exotic weapon, well, unless maybe he was human and took it with his human bonus feat). Maybe work it in so that at every 4th level a class can choose a weapon or armor feat and learn it for free. Or maybe make them subtract a little XP for it (they trained in that feat rather than training for their next level). Just some thoughts.
It would certainly put more value on racial bonuses to turn exotic weapons into martial weapons e.g. Half-Orc's treat exotic orc named weapons as martial
Half-elf gain prof in one weapon
(I wasn't trying to say that ONLY humans get weapon feats at level 1, just listing some examples from the top of my head, not trying to be all inclusive).
Maybe, but forget about falcatas, khopeshes, one-handed bastard swords, spiked chains, fouchards, mancatchers, and harpoons, just to name a few, and all of these (except spiked chains) were used in historic Earth, but aside from fighters or a fairly small number of corner cases, nobody will ever use them, and many others I didn't mention.
And you'll never see a rogue using a longsword (unless he's human or elf), or a cleric in full plate, or many other combinations that don't really seem like they should be forever prohibited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.If you read any of the optimization guides around here, everyone is taking the same feats anyway, so they (almost) might as well just reassigned as specific class abilities.
Well, yes, if everyone was a perfect little optimizer, you'd never see any sorcerer who wasn't Arcane Blooded, a TWF Ranger, or a Wizard who wastes a page in his spellbook on Fireball or Scorching Ray. But not every game is high-op. Most of the time when I glance at the guides, I've already planned my character, and just want to make sure the feat or spell I chose isn't a glaring red trap.
Maybe, but forget about falcatas, khopeshes, one-handed bastard swords, spiked chains, fouchards, mancatchers, and harpoons, just to name a few, and all of these (except spiked chains) were used in historic Earth, but aside from fighters or a fairly small number of corner cases, nobody will ever use them, and many others I didn't mention.
Just to be devil's advocate here, would it be so much of a false assumption to say those who used those weapons would have at least one level in fighter? Maybe not fully classed, but Paladin School might not teach you how to use a khopesh, and that would require more specialized (read: fighter, if we are now to assume feats are more or less solely the domain of the fighter) training.
Maybe, but forget about falcatas, khopeshes, one-handed bastard swords, spiked chains, fouchards, mancatchers, and harpoons, just to name a few, and all of these (except spiked chains) were used in historic Earth, but aside from fighters or a fairly small number of corner cases, nobody will ever use them, and many others I didn't mention.Just to be devil's advocate here, would it be so much of a false assumption to say those who used those weapons would have at least one level in fighter? Maybe not fully classed, but Paladin School might not teach you how to use a khopesh, and that would require more specialized (read: fighter, if we are now to assume feats are more or less solely the domain of the fighter) training.
Maybe, but many classes, especially those with level-dependent abilities, doubly-especially those with spellcasting, are often loathe to dip even one level for really good things, just because it delays their core abilities. A cleric taking a level of fighter for heavy armor is delaying all of his spellcasting by one level, a ridiculously huge cost for that. Burning a feat on it is a much more reasonable cost and many do just that.
I'm not saying it can't be done. The OP asked what would happen, what would be the impact. I offered a couple suggestions to mitigate some of the more obvious impact, mostly to provoke some thought, not to say my way is the only way to do it.
I was only suggesting that proficiency feats are relatively small and inconsequential in the big scheme of things, and they allow for some interesting diversity, like maybe seeing a wizard walking around wielding a glaive. Saying "No, only fighters (mostly) can learn to do that, sabotage your class progression for it or forget the idea completely" is probably unnecessarily prohibitive.
I was only suggesting that proficiency feats are relatively small and inconsequential in the big scheme of things, and they allow for some interesting diversity,
I disagree with your premise here. If anything when people go for exotic weapons they all choose the same few with the "best" stats, people don't choose exotic weapons for flavour. If you want flavour you choose a different weapon in the martial list as there are many and they are covered by martial weapon prof.
If you have to spend a feat to get it then you want bang for you buck so to speak.
I take you point that it would prohibit some weapons, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
I grant you could houserule in 1 free weapon prof but why bother ? Still plenty of weapons to choose from.
TBH there are plenty of other games to choose from too.
I'm sure there's plenty out there that already don't utilize Feats and weren't designed with them in mind.
TBH there are plenty of other games to choose from too.
I'm sure there's plenty out there that already don't utilize Feats and weren't designed with them in mind.
Granted, although I've yet to think of any reason that removing the general feat at odd levels would fundamentally break the game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there are a ton of actions you simply cannot do without Feats. The game, by design, requires adventurers to have Feats to do things.
Now, you may change that if you wish but it doesn't change that assumption.
As well, I still think it would be quite boring for any sort of martial character to be limited to A.) Simple attacking with their weapon (who's gonna risk an AoO for a combat maneuver every single time?) and B.) Much lower damage than they usually enjoy (one of the few leg ups they usually have over casters).
It increases the Caster/Martial disparity by quite a bit. Casters already require very few Feats to function at 100%.
Because there are a ton of actions you simply cannot do without Feats. The game, by design, requires adventurers to have Feats to do things.
Now, you may change that if you wish but it doesn't change that assumption.
As well, I still think it would be quite boring for any sort of martial character to be limited to A.) Simple attacking with their weapon (who's gonna risk an AoO for a combat maneuver every single time?) and B.) Much lower damage than they usually enjoy (one of the few leg ups they usually have over casters in combat).
It increases the Caster/Martial disparity by quite a bit. Casters already require very few Feats to function at 100%.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear but any class that has bonus feats keeps them. Therefore the Fighter keeps all their fighter bonus feats so for example of improved CMB can still be done.
There are also many archtypes that grant specific feats in lieu of class abilites.
I'll grant casters require very few feats to function at 100% but under a no level feats system they wouldn't get those few key feats and thus would not function at 100%, no improved initiative springs to mind ;)
I think he was talking about the rest of the 'martial characters', not just fighters.
Also consider the casters again. Wizards get bonus feats and can learn to make magic items, use metamagic feats, gain spell focus, etc. Sorcerers will never get that. Neither will clerics, druids, or just about all other casters. Just wizards.
Oh, and clerics without Selective Channel - there goes a frequently much-needed ability in many APs.
Come to think of it, who in the entire game will make magical items? Or will NPCs still be able to take feats? Does everyone have to be a wizard to make magical items now? Are there that many wizards? And how do they make potions of Cure Light Wounds, or wands of Restoration?
Another way to look at the balance:
Everyone gets 10 feats. Fighters get 20, that's 2x what everyone else gets. Your way, fighters get infinitely more. Wizards get 15 feats, that's 50% more than sorcerers, clerics, etc., but your way, it's infinitely more.
In other words, those classes with bonus feats suddenly have their bonus feats become a far, far more powerful (imbalanced) class feature. Maybe fighters need that to keep up, but wizards surely do not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What we really need for Pathfinder are better feats.
An example would be the feats used in Tome D&D above.
No, I do not mean Tome of Battle. This is a different sourcebook.
I am certain that it could work, but you would need to make plenty of changes.
I think you probably need to give away a ton of feats for free to all characters as soon as they meet the prerequisites. Here's my list:
Certain classes have obvious feats that are all but required, like druids and Natural Spell or Clerics and Selective Channel. They need to get those somehow unless you're cool with them getting significantly weaker.
You could benefit from adding a weak version of metamagic rods which allow spontaneous casters access to a feat while they wield them and allow prepared casters to prepare spells with the feat, but only get its benefits if they are wielding the rod as they cast it.
You don't seem to understand the ramification of "no feats". "no feats" means (in no particular order)
1) no power attack unless you are a warrior
2) no metamagic unless you are a wizard
3) only fighter can use manovers (since they are suicide without the improved feat)
4) Druid couldn't cast while shapeshifted
5) Only class able to craft is wizard
I think i could go on but as you can see, a lot of classes simply couldn't be played (druid and sorc on top). It's not just a matter of "classes become boring", as much as "some classes are broken" without feats. You should do some resarch on "feat tax" to get the idea of how much feats are foundamental for playing certain classes.
It would affect the monster's also. Now dragons can cast spells, but monsters relying on brute power would lose power attack. Some use the SLA based feats. Feats are important enough that the game's balance would chance.
You don't seem to understand the ramification of "no feats". "no feats" means (in no particular order)
1) no power attack unless you are a warrior
2) no metamagic unless you are a wizard
3) only fighter can use manovers (since they are suicide without the improved feat)
4) Druid couldn't cast while shapeshifted
5) Only class able to craft is wizardI think i could go on but as you can see, a lot of classes simply couldn't be played (druid and sorc on top). It's not just a matter of "classes become boring", as much as "some classes are broken" without feats. You should do some resarch on "feat tax" to get the idea of how much feats are foundamental for playing certain classes.
1) It prevents non fighter melee class from being optimised it doesn't break them to uselessness, Paladin's can still smite just fine without PA
2) I don't see this as a problem, different, but not a problem (wizard only get 4 bonus feats total and don't get their first until 5th level.3) Not true other classes offer CMB feats through archtypes and some through class abilites and you can always dip into fighter to pickup said feat, yes it would cost you a level.
4) This isn't a deal breaker for druids, requires some thought instead of just always be wildshaped. This is an optimization for a driud not an essential.
5) Again not seeing this as a problem as mention in 2 first bonus feat at 5th next at 10th, craft sacrifices metamagic and vice versa
Still haven't seen an example of a class that fundamentally can not function as intended without X feat. Or functions so poorly its unplayable. Even Clerics without channel feats are not broken they're just not optimised.
Are there any "feats for morons" guides out there? It didn't occur to me until this thread, but I don't really like feats very much. If there were a default list of generic "usually reasonable" feats for fighters, wizards, clerics and thieves that would be useful to me.
You don't seem to understand the ramification of "no feats". "no feats" means (in no particular order)
1) no power attack unless you are a warrior
2) no metamagic unless you are a wizard
3) only fighter can use manovers (since they are suicide without the improved feat)
4) Druid couldn't cast while shapeshifted
5) Only class able to craft is wizardI think i could go on but as you can see, a lot of classes simply couldn't be played (druid and sorc on top). It's not just a matter of "classes become boring", as much as "some classes are broken" without feats. You should do some resarch on "feat tax" to get the idea of how much feats are foundamental for playing certain classes.
1) It prevents non fighter melee class from being optimised it doesn't break them to uselessness, Paladin's can still smite just fine without PA
2) I don't see this as a problem, different, but not a problem (wizard only get 4 bonus feats total and don't get their first until 5th level.
3) Not true other classes offer CMB feats through archtypes and some through class abilites and you can always dip into fighter to pickup said feat, yes it would cost you a level.
4) This isn't a deal breaker for druids, requires some thought instead of just always be wildshaped. This is an optimization for a driud not an essential.
5) Again not seeing this as a problem as mention in 2 first bonus feat at 5th next at 10th, craft sacrifices metamagic and vice versaStill haven't seen an example of a class that fundamentally can not function as intended without X feat. Or functions so poorly its unplayable. Even Clerics without channel feats are not broken they're just not optimised.
I doubt a party would survive in a game unless the GM really helped them out.
Things like Iron Will, improved initiative and so on really help out. The boss fights would not go well.
A barbarian without power attack is not hitting as hard. You can't really depend on archetypes because not every GM allows every book, and even so some of them are not even as good as the base class, so that just means fewer of them are now decent in play, if at all.
The casters(6 and 9 spell level) wont be so bad off because they have spells which means they still have options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any "feats for morons" guides out there? It didn't occur to me until this thread, but I don't really like feats very much. If there were a default list of generic "usually reasonable" feats for fighters, wizards, clerics and thieves that would be useful to me.
A lot of the most reasonable feats (especially at low levels) are Core Rulebook ones.
When in doubt and overwhelmed by the variety available, I tend to go there first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any "feats for morons" guides out there? It didn't occur to me until this thread, but I don't really like feats very much. If there were a default list of generic "usually reasonable" feats for fighters, wizards, clerics and thieves that would be useful to me.
The "Creating NPCs" chapter of the Core Rulebook kind of includes such generic default lists, in that it provides lists of feats suitable for basic character types.
The cleric and druid really won't play like they're meant to without selective channel and natural spell. Barbarians are losing a ton of damage if you take their power attack, and all they do is damage. They're supposed to have it.
Without weapon finesse it gets much harder to create certain classes.
Qualifying for prestige classes becomes difficult or impossible.
You can take feats away, but if you want the game to work well you are going to have to replace them with something.
I disagree with your premise here. If anything when people go for exotic weapons they all choose the same few with the "best" stats, people don't choose exotic weapons for flavour. If you want flavour you choose a different weapon in the martial list as there are many and they are covered by martial weapon prof.
I don't agree. Taking EWP is usually not the "best" choice. Weapon Focus (longsword) is "better" than EWP (bastard sword), for example.
I think the rouge would get nerfed even worse then it is due to not being able to use dervish dance or two weapon fighting till at least lvl 4. The magus would not be able to dervish dance until lvl 10 or something close to that.
It would also ruin a lot of choices that i would be able to make like right now I have a lvl 11 two weapon unarmed combat paladin. If there were no feats I would have to be a lvl 6 fighter and 5 paladin and it would not fit in with the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting premise. Going class by class, some of the effects I can see:
Alchemist - Internal alchemist and other archetypes that let you select feats as a discovery become more attractive options. Fast Bombs becomes a useless discovery without a way of getting Quick Draw (a fighter dip probably). Alchemists become the primary makers of potions (some witches and wizards may also create potions).
Barbarian - Rage powers are the primary differentiation between barbarians of the same archetype and they will have fewer options in combat. Many will dip 1-2 levels of fighter to pick up a couple feats.
Bard - Archetypes become critical choices and certain key feats (like Lingering Performance) will no longer be available. Bards are versatile enough "out of the box" that they will still be viable in most cases. Combat-focused bards will probably dip 1-3 levels in fighter (depending on the number of feats desired and if they want Armor Training 1).
Cavalier - Become even more focused on mounted combat and teamwork feats. Many will dip 1-2 fighter levels, even at the cost of mount progression, for some key feats.
Cleric - Domains and archetype choices provide pretty much the only differentiation between clerics of the same deity; cloistered clerics become the primary source of divine scrolls; dwarves (forgemasters) will make much of the magic armor and weapons in the world (along with wizards). Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability becomes an attractive option.
Druid - Wildshape is no longer as powerful with the loss of Natural Spell; a druid now has to choose between casting and being in wildshape. The Totem Transformation abilities of the totem druids become more useful. Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability may be worthwhile (barbarian for Rage and rage powers, fighter for heavy armor proficiency and feats, ranger for Favored Enemy and Combat Style, etc.).
Fighter - Loses some versatility, but many characters will dip fighter for feats.
Gunslinger - Will need levels in fighter to pick up key feats.
Inquisitor - Teamwork feats become more central to the class. May dip fighter to pick up combat feats.
Magus - A lot of feat intensive builds will no longer be possible. May dip fighter to pick up combat feats.
Monk - Loses some versatility, but still gets a lot of feat choices. Has many archetypes that focus on different combat options.
Oracle - Mystery and revelation choices become even more critical. Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability becomes an attractive option.
Paladin - Archetypes become the main differentiation between characters. May dip fighter to pick up combat feats.
Ranger - Switch-hitter rangers become harder to pull off without a fighter dip.
Rogue - Archetypes and rogue talents become the main differentiation. Using rogue talents to pick up feats and dips in fighter will see a lot of use.
Sorcerer - The bloodline feats become critical; the Arcane bloodline takes a major hit, since the only metamagic feat they can get to use with Metamagic Adept is Still Spell (and they have to wait until 7th level for it). Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability becomes an attractive option.
Summoner - Archetypes and eidolon evolutions become the main differentiation. Dipping, a poor choice for a summoner, may be the only way of getting certain feats or abilities.
Witch - Archetypes and hexes become the main differentiation between characters. The Cauldron hex is about the only way for most witches to make magic items. Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability becomes an attractive option.
Wizard - Scribe Scroll at 1st level makes them the primary source of arcane scrolls; they're also the pretty much the only class that can take the Craft Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, and Forge Ring feats. They have to choose between item creation and metamagic feats; wizards are less versatile with the limited number of feats. Depending on the character, a dip in another class for a key feat or ability becomes an attractive option.
General observation on item creation: Classes/archetypes that gain Arcane Bond with an item become very attractive, because it's so difficult to get item creation feats.
General observation on multiclassing: Multiclassing will probably become more common, since it will be the only method for many characters to gain the feats or abilities they want to have.
Another thought.
Every monster in the books has feats. Well, almost all of them. Do they lose their feats, or are they considered "racial bonus feats" for those monsters?
Option 1, they lose their feats, means altering every encounter. Tedious, but workable if the DM is willing to make the alterations.
Option 2, they keep their feats, means the encounters are now overpowered against PCs without feats. How much overpowered probably varies from monster to monster and might be hard to quantify, so it might become difficult for the DM to accurately assess CR when creating encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.
Yup.
No. It would be a very different game though. We played for decades where members of classes were close to identical mechanically. Differences were minor. The fun came from what happened in game. If the only fun in your game comes from your feats and character customization...
Barbarians couldn't use power attack.
No divine casters could use metamagic. Bards either. Sorcerors couldn't unless it's on their bloodline list.
It's a terrible idea.
Still haven't seen an example of a class that fundamentally can not function as intended without X feat. Or functions so poorly its unplayable. Even Clerics without channel feats are not broken they're just not optimised.
You DO realize that "literally cannot function as a class" is no the only kind of imbalance, don't you?
No. It would be a very different game though. We played for decades where members of classes were close to identical mechanically. Differences were minor. The fun came from what happened in game. If the only fun in your game comes from your feats and character customization...
Yes, you played for decades without them. And then they were added, changing the game entirely because now the game existed with the assumption that Feats would be available.
I think it's safe to say as well that most people prefer, say, 3e over AD&D as well considering the sheer difference in number of people playing.
And yes, the game is more fun if characters can be different from each other. The things that happen in game are directly tied to the character's mechanics and personality in tandem. With this change, almost every non-spellcaster will be exactly the same as each other. Every Paladin will be exactly the same mechanically. Every Barbarian will be exactly the same mechanically, and so on. This WILL get boring after a while to most people. Choice is important.
Still haven't seen an example of a class that fundamentally can not function as intended without X feat. Or functions so poorly its unplayable. Even Clerics without channel feats are not broken they're just not optimised.
You DO realize that "literally cannot function as a class" is no the only kind of imbalance, don't you?
You mean the kind of imbalance that already exists between pathfinder classes ;)
Don't forget that one of the big balance changes from 3.x to Pathfinder was increasing the number of feats. In 3.x, characters got a feat at 1st, 3rd, and every 3 levels thereafter, for a total of 7 feats for non-fighters. In Pathfinder, it's 1st, 3rd, and every other level thereafter, for a total of 10 feats. Those extra 3 made a big difference to how customizable a class felt.
Also, keep in mind that fighters only get bonus combat feats. So if a feat isn't a combat feat, metamagic feat (wizards) or specifically granted to another class as a special option (monks and rangers), then it no longer exists.
I doubt a party would survive in a game unless the GM really helped them out.Things like Iron Will, improved initiative and so on really help out. The boss fights would not go well.
So basically things become harder for players, more challenging ? And that's a bad thing because ?
Players are a smart enough bunch to make things work for them with what is available. Fighter wants +2 will save maybe he just goes and level dips in a class with high will save.
Yes, you can't build every character that can be built now, but I'm not seeing that as a negative.
|
I totally, 100% agree with Icyshadow's post. Feats do help specialize your character, but truthfully they don't help specialize very much, at least not in any sort of defining way. It really depends on what the character wants to do, but why do you need feats to emphasize that?
For example, let's say I want to make a damage-dealing melee character. It really doesn't matter WHAT class or race combo I choose, he will most likely (about 95%) take Power Attack. If you want to do lots of damage, you take power attack, or his little brother Piranha Strike. However, dealing lots of damage, I would think, would be something that's built into the class/archetype. Being accurate with weapons should be something built into the class/archetype.
Feats need to be meaningful. Small statistical bonuses aren't meaningful, and don't really change the way your character progresses very much. Say what you will about the usefulness of feats like Power Attack, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc., but they aren't interesting options: They're small bonuses that allow your character the privilege of doing what he was supposed to be doing since level 1.
If feats are going to represent character specialization, they need to let characters do something cool. Weapon Mastery feat that gives you proficiency with multiple exotic weapons (which have nifty, cool abilities, not just better/different numbers)? That's fun. Charger feat that lets you bull rush enemies into other enemies for extra damage/conditions? That's fun.
A +1 bonus to attack rolls is not.
Now, don't get me wrong: People should have the option of making their character super accurate or super strong or super tough or w/e. But that should be the purview of classes and races, not feats.
No. It would be a very different game though. We played for decades where members of classes were close to identical mechanically. Differences were minor. The fun came from what happened in game. If the only fun in your game comes from your feats and character customization...
Sounds like a helluva boring game if every member of every class is nearly exactly the same mechanically.
Yup.
What game was this? I played 2nd edition and there were still differences. I mean enough to say the classes were not virtually identical.
I totally, 100% agree with Icyshadow's post. Feats do help specialize your character, but truthfully they don't help specialize very much, at least not in any sort of defining way. It really depends on what the character wants to do, but why do you need feats to emphasize that?
For example, let's say I want to make a damage-dealing melee character. It really doesn't matter WHAT class or race combo I choose, he will most likely (about 95%) take Power Attack. If you want to do lots of damage, you take power attack, or his little brother Piranha Strike. However, dealing lots of damage, I would think, would be something that's built into the class/archetype. Being accurate with weapons should be something built into the class/archetype.
Feats need to be meaningful. Small statistical bonuses aren't meaningful, and don't really change the way your character progresses very much. Say what you will about the usefulness of feats like Power Attack, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc., but they aren't interesting options: They're small bonuses that allow your character the privilege of doing what he was supposed to be doing since level 1.
If feats are going to represent character specialization, they need to let characters do something cool. Weapon Mastery feat that gives you proficiency with multiple exotic weapons (which have nifty, cool abilities, not just better/different numbers)? That's fun. Charger feat that lets you bull rush enemies into other enemies for extra damage/conditions? That's fun.
A +1 bonus to attack rolls is not.
Now, don't get me wrong: People should have the option of making their character super accurate or super strong or super tough or w/e. But that should be the purview of classes and races, not feats.
What is interesting is a personal opinion. With that aside feats generally make you better at what you want to do.
Yeah I do agree some feats should not even be feats, but that does not mean they are not meaningful just because they only provide number bonuses. They are just not always every interesting if they don't allow you to do something "cool".
I think if you get hit by a power attacking giant you won't be saying the feat is not helping him specialize in doing more damage to you.
Dull.