|
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 ?
Yes. In 2.0. Feats were a good addition to the system, and were a necessary adjunct to the new Skills system that was introduced at the same time, and which was the primary motivation or the evolution of 2.0 to 3.0, and eventually 3.5. Pathfinder is a direct descendant of this line, and a major part of its popularity is based on the combined Feat and Skill progression systems.
Basically Feats are typically combat skills, and therefore primary combatants (fighter types) get more of them. Most of them don't let you do someting you couldn't already do. They just make you good at it through presumed "practice".
Take TWF for example, ANYBODY can do it, you just usally take a huge (-6/-10) penalty to ATK. The Feat says that if you have DEX 15 and you practice for a whole level (or maybe two), you can cut the penalty down to -4/-4, and if you use light weapons (which are easier to handle) you can cut it down some more, to -2/-2. TWF didn't give you anything you couldn't already do, just made you better at it.
Keep the Feat system. Add new Feats if you want. Just leave the core rules alone, and give us more content.
Specify.
Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Specify.Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Not true, your character can dip a level of fighter and the whip is yours. That won't be a problem, will it?
Not true, your character can dip a level of fighter and the whip is yours. That won't be a problem, will it?Specify.Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Can my Barbarian learn how to use a whip/sword combo and use power attacks?
Sure, just take 4 levels of Fighter to gain TwF, Whip Proficiency, and Power Attack. you'll be 4 levels behind in rage, but that's what it takes to learn how to use weapons and hit things extra hard.
(suddenly multiclassing becomes required for many character and anyone wanting to do something not cliche for their classes has to be punished for it. I don't want to punish players for being creative).
I don't know about that, R Chance. The 2nd ed non-weapon proficiencies started out as a skill-system and eventually developed into the granddaddy of the feat system with stuff like Blind-Fighting; and practically every post-Unearthed Arcana fighter was suddenly double-specialized (just plain specialized for 2nd ed fighters)... I think the craving for customization - though it complicates the game - isn't something we should kill off just so the optimization-driven folks have to look elsewhere for things to optimize.
Weapon and non-weapon proficiencies were the beginning of it, I agree. It was still rudimentary compared to 3E and the mechanical differences were pretty minimal. And I agree, customization is good. I just said the game was still fun with that minimal level of customization (Class, weapon proficiencies, non-weapon proficiencies and spell selection were pretty much it). The question on customization is how much can you have before you over complicate the game and render the advantages of a class based rpg moot. I am not saying we are there yet, btw.
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.
Yes I did and yes, adding them changed the game. Consider the difference? What about it? There are more people playing? Yep. I never said it was better or worse. Those numbers are due to a lot more than just a new edition btw. Anyway, just different but still fun. And yes characters were very similar. Some minor differences with spell selection and weapon / non-weapon proficiencies (in 2E). Choice back in the day was basically down to class selection in the beginning. Characters became customized as the game went on, not in the beginning. Is more choice good? Yes. I could play 1E or 2E (and have a full table) but I play PF. Well, a home brewed 3.x anyway :) That doesn't change the fact that 2E (and before) was a fun game. And many would still find it that way (and do). PF is not the only RPG. Some people play it and other games as well. Btw, boring it was not but ymmv.
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 played and ran 2E as well, along with 0E, 1E as well as 3E, 3.5E and PF. I said "where members of classes were close to identical mechanically". Within the same class, not homogenized / identical, sorry if that wasn't clear. The differences in 2E were weapon and non-weapon proficiencies chosen and spells inside the same class. Compared to now, pretty minimal.
Not true, your character can dip a level of fighter and the whip is yours. That won't be a problem, will it?Specify.Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Can my Barbarian learn how to use a whip/sword combo and use power attacks?
Sure, just take 4 levels of Fighter to gain TwF, Whip Proficiency, and Power Attack. you'll be 4 levels behind in rage, but that's what it takes to learn how to use weapons and hit things extra hard.
(suddenly multiclassing becomes required for many character and anyone wanting to do something not cliche for their classes has to be punished for it. I don't want to punish players for being creative).
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
Your argument about being dull seems to simply be that you would not be able to make the same a specific build without feats and not that there anything intrinsically wrong with a no feat system that makes things dull.
I'd be willing to play this game.
I think fighters, rogues (talents are feats) and monks would be better comparatively.
Barbs, pallys are gonna hurt.
Druids get acceptably powereddown.
Clerics and mages have to start making some tough decisions.
This is not a horrible idea for an experiment.
A LOT of stuff will all but disappear though.
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
When was the last time you saw a dual wielding Barbarian?
When was the last time you saw a dual wielding Barbarian?
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
Are you kidding ?
He is right, dual wielding is heavily suboptimal in general but especially on barbarians. It's feat intensive and that's the one thing they don't really have. There's a rage power that gives you TWF while raging but it won't work as a prerequisite for TWF feats and it requires one that gives unarmed strike while raging first.Are you kidding ?When was the last time you saw a dual wielding Barbarian?
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
sub optimal/less common does not make it special or unique.
TWF Barbarians in pop culture are just as cliche as their THF cousins.
He is right, dual wielding is heavily suboptimal in general but especially on barbarians. It's feat intensive and that's the one thing they don't really have. There's a rage power that gives you TWF while raging but it won't work as a prerequisite for TWF feats and it requires one that gives unarmed strike while raging first.Are you kidding ?When was the last time you saw a dual wielding Barbarian?
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?sub optimal/less common does not make it special or unique.
TWF Barbarians in pop culture are just as cliche as their THF cousins.
Not true, your character can dip a level of fighter and the whip is yours. That won't be a problem, will it?Specify.Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Can my Barbarian learn how to use a whip/sword combo and use power attacks?
Sure, just take 4 levels of Fighter to gain TwF, Whip Proficiency, and Power Attack. you'll be 4 levels behind in rage, but that's what it takes to learn how to use weapons and hit things extra hard.
(suddenly multiclassing becomes required for many character and anyone wanting to do something not cliche for their classes has to be punished for it. I don't want to punish players for being creative).
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
Your argument about being dull seems to simply be that you would not be able to make the same a specific build without feats and not that there anything intrinsically wrong with a no feat system that makes things dull.
Perhaps two of my feat choices weren't perfect for the example. Substitute whatever you wish. The above build with a bard and Dire Flail instead.
The bottom line is, without feats, characters would be required to multiclass in order to get the equivalents of feats (proficiency, skill ability, being able to do X and Y a little bit), and multiclassing generally makes character much less powerful. Ergo, players would be penalized more, and less likely to get creative with their builds and characters.
There would be fewer options and characters, NPCs, and monsters would be less diverse, with the diverse characters being significantly less powerful. That would be less fun for me.
Not true, your character can dip a level of fighter and the whip is yours. That won't be a problem, will it?Specify.Can my character learn how to use a whip?
Nope. Never.
Can my Barbarian learn how to use a whip/sword combo and use power attacks?
Sure, just take 4 levels of Fighter to gain TwF, Whip Proficiency, and Power Attack. you'll be 4 levels behind in rage, but that's what it takes to learn how to use weapons and hit things extra hard.
(suddenly multiclassing becomes required for many character and anyone wanting to do something not cliche for their classes has to be punished for it. I don't want to punish players for being creative).
A TWF Barbarian using PA isn't cliche ?
Your argument about being dull seems to simply be that you would not be able to make the same a specific build without feats and not that there anything intrinsically wrong with a no feat system that makes things dull.
Perhaps two of my feat choices weren't perfect for the example. Substitute whatever you wish. The above build with a bard and Dire Flail instead.
The bottom line is, without feats, characters would be required to multiclass in order to get the equivalents of feats (proficiency, skill ability, being able to do X and Y a little bit), and multiclassing generally makes character much less powerful. Ergo, players would be penalized more, and less likely to get creative with their builds and characters.
There would be fewer options and characters, NPCs, and monsters would be less diverse, with the diverse characters being significantly less powerful. That would be less fun for me.
Why do you feel a specific weapon is required to make a character feel unique or special ?
and in your second example Bard and dire flail ?
Half-elf with ancestral arms choose dire flail and levels in bard no dip required.
With core classes, base classes, alternative classes, choices within those classes (cavalier orders, ranger style, bloodlines, mysteries etc etc) archtypes, prestige classes and multiclassing I'm just not seeing how there's going to be a significant loss of diversity.
I could make an argument that you might see more diversity if the "classic optimized builds" are no longer available.
Why do you feel a specific weapon is required to make a character feel unique or special ?
It's not just weapons; people have talked about them the most because it's more obvious. It's really about choices that make a character feel unique or special. Your plan takes away many choices, thus taking away some of that uniqueness or specialization.
and in your second example Bard and dire flail ?
Half-elf with ancestral arms choose dire flail and levels in bard no dip required.
I didn't know this. I suspect many players don't.
See, with the current situation, any new player can create a level 1 character and learn things as they go, making character and FEAT choices along the way. Will they be uber-super-duper-optimized? No, of course not. Will the player think he made choices that interested him and made his character fun? Yep, roger that.
Your system takes that away. Now, to make the character you might eventually want, you have to know it all, plan it all, and find corner cases of racial abilities and class archetypes, all before you ever write up the level 1 character sheet.
Not everybody plays that way. Maybe your group does. If so, then go for it.
With core classes, base classes, alternative classes, choices within those classes (cavalier orders, ranger style, bloodlines, mysteries etc etc) archtypes, prestige classes and multiclassing I'm just not seeing how there's going to be a significant loss of diversity.
Loss of diversity for system masters who plan every detail before they create their level one character? You're right, there will be very little. Will those guys often have to give up good stuff to get other good stuff? Yes, at least sometimes. Is that OK? Obviously for you and a few others it is, for yet others it isn't OK.
Loss of diversity for newer, non-master players who take things as they come? Absolutely. Almost everything you just mentioned must be decided before you're done creating a level one character. Non-master players just don't have the system knowledge to make these kinds of decisions as well as you do, and it will hurt them.
***************
Final answer: you asked a question about what we thought of a no-feat game. You got answers and challenged, ardently, every dissenting opinion. You obviously didn't want opinions but, instead, you wanted approval and/or praise for your idea.
You don't need it. It's your game. Do what you want. See how it works. Maybe it will be awesome. Maybe if you find a second group of totally different players and try the same thing, it will be a fiasco. Who knows? Just give it a try, that's obviously what you want to do anyway.
Final answer: you asked a question about what we thought of a no-feat game. You got answers and challenged, ardently, every dissenting opinion. You obviously didn't want opinions but, instead, you wanted approval and/or praise for your idea.
You don't need it. It's your game. Do what you want. See how it works. Maybe it will be awesome. Maybe if you find a second group of totally different players and try the same thing, it will be a fiasco. Who knows? Just give it a try, that's obviously what you want to do anyway.
Is that not how a lively discussion is cultivated ? You challenge my assertions I challenge yours, and hopefully if we're both reasonable minded people we may reconsider our own ideas during the course of the discussion to come to more meaningful conclusions ?
what the point of a thread where everyone agrees its a good idea ? and I simply reply to everyone who posts agreement that I agree with their agreement ?
if anything I'm getting more useful information from the people I disagree with because each makes me rethink my position on the inherent nature of feats and their place in the game.
My thanks to you and everyone who has put forward their opposition.
I think some of the biggest results of this would be alot of character types would have to multiclass with fighter. There are some feats that are a necessity for specific concepts. Examples are weapon finesse for dextrous combatants, or the archery feats (point blank, precise shot, rapid shot, many shot) for archers. While power attack might not be NEEDED for a 2handed paladin, point blank/precise shot are a necessity for a ranged inquisitor.
Personally I wouldnt play in a game where every combatant needed to have levels in fighter to function, that isnt good design to me. And as the game stands many many classes will have difficulty functioning as they are meant to with no access to feats. Having to multiclass delays the character from advancing in its actual intended abilities, and that again to me is bad design.
I personally like very flexible characters that can do lots of different things (even if they cant do any one thing the best), this kind of change makes that difficult as usually characters steping outside of the neat niches require feats to do so in the current game.
I think if you wanted to do this you would have to make some modifications, basically make certain things that are currently feats be automatic (power attack, weapon finesse, deadly aim, precise shot come to mind), possibly just tying these features directly to the weapons they are associated with. Have a big axe? power attack with it, have a longbow? +1 bab gives you precise shot, Have a rapier? Go ahead and use your dex. That sort of thing.
I think the issue with this change isnt going to be a loss of diversity, it will be a loss of diversity in what is effective. Some basic concepts will be unaffected. A 2handed fighter will still smash things, a wizard is virtually unaffected except maybe for the loss of improved initiative and combat casting, same with a casting focused cleric. But the 'battle' cleric would suffer without the additional resources of feats. Paladins would probably do ok with their divine bond in their weapon, but would be more or less useless on their mount without the ability to take mounted combat feats if they wanted to go the other route with their divine bond.
A cavalier wouldnt have mounted combat untill 6th level, again causing issues with the class's basic abilities.
A wildshaping druid would have no ability to get natural spell, which is less of a problem for wild shapers that transform into big bruising creatures to fight (they can buff and then transform and then fight) but is a problem for druids that want to use wildshape for utility but still focus on their spellcasting.
You could still with the way pathfinder has classes set up potentially play a diverse set of characters, but the ones that actually work, will be drastically limited without access to feats.
Zag, only up to two talents are feats. You can't take the one for a combat feat more than once, and one of them HAS to be weapon finesse. Congratulations all rogues are now finesse builds, and they can never be that good of TWF so they're gonna have to go dervish.
Mages won't really hurt because only one, maybe two metamagics have prerequisites. Other than that, they're almost entirely spell dependent, not feat dependent.
Edit:
Nope sorry, there's up to 6 combat feats they can get.
Improved steal
firearm Training
Combat Trick
Finesse Rogue
and Weapon Training
Strong ImpressionSo you can no longer be a TWF and you can't be a good strength person really.
the Firearm training will be useless with weapon Finesse as well as the strong impression.
... yeah. This isn't going well for him.
Not at all.
That list isn't bad, in context.This featless system would somewhat hinder TWF in nearly all classes, even fighter as most TWFighter builds are using more than just bonus feats to pursue that path.
Mages would suffer. Improved Inititive is gone, so is Dodge. Crafting is a serious deliberation now.
This would be a different game. Feats are that integral.
TWF would be Monk/Ranger territory.
Going first, largely the Rogue/Ranger.
I'd wager PCs crafting would Vanish. Beyond Potions and Scrolls anyway.
Removing feats is a good idea, but not an idea to implement in Pathfinder.
It would require to change pretty much anything else to work properly (IE prevent every single warrior to be multiclassed fighter for example, or increasing the gap between casters and non-casters even more than before).
It would also require to totally rewrite every single monster in the game.
I'd wager PCs crafting would Vanish. Beyond Potions and Scrolls anyway.
Why ? the only one that will be able to take it are wizards (without any normal feat).
They will be able to craft as much as before, but no one else will be able to do it. So they will have more ... incentive from other players (and I wrote players, not characters) to do it.
...How does eliminating choice and diversity make for a better role-playing experience?I think Calybos is asserting that characters can be role-played even in a system that is mechanically restrictive. Which is true enough: some systems get by on just one or two stats. Personally I prefer systems with plenty of stats if they're going to be 'combat simulators' (like D&D and Pathfinder) and relatively few stats if they deal with combat cinematically (like Savage Worlds or Amber Diceless).Exactly. Mechanics do not make a good character; roleplaying does.
"A TWF with Weapon Finesse, Improved Initiative, and 18 Dex" is not a character concept: "Dashing Swordsman hunting the crimelord who ordered his beloved's death" is a character concept.
Certainly true, but the Dashing swordsman needs the two weapon fighter with the 18 dex to deal with the crimelords minions when they show up to put down the guy who has been messing with his business.
Roleplaying makes the character interesting, but without the mechanics to back it up, the situations that actaully call for mechanics (IE the bad guys ambushing the above hero in a dark alley), no amount of good roleplay will keep him from being dead (and thus losing alot of what had gone into roleplaying the character) when he is eaten by a bear in the woods or mugged in the night by theives.
...How does eliminating choice and diversity make for a better role-playing experience?I think Calybos is asserting that characters can be role-played even in a system that is mechanically restrictive. Which is true enough: some systems get by on just one or two stats. Personally I prefer systems with plenty of stats if they're going to be 'combat simulators' (like D&D and Pathfinder) and relatively few stats if they deal with combat cinematically (like Savage Worlds or Amber Diceless).Exactly. Mechanics do not make a good character; roleplaying does.
"A TWF with Weapon Finesse, Improved Initiative, and 18 Dex" is not a character concept: "Dashing Swordsman hunting the crimelord who ordered his beloved's death" is a character concept.
No, not "exactly".
There's a reason the CRB and other books as well are about 90% combat rules. Yes, even the character section and equipment section and almost everything else, almost all the rules are about what to do to injure, kill, control, and avoid the same.
This game is a tactical combat simulation. Sure, it has rules for the rest of the stuff. Sure, the rest of the stuff is fun too. But if you choose to play a tactical combat simulator and then eliminate many of the tactics, you're restricting the characters.
It's fine to be a "dashing swordsman hunting the crime lord who ordered his beloved's death", but if you can't swing the sword, if you can't beat the crime lord or his minions, then all you are is a sad, angst-filled bitter wannabe swordsman wishing you could do something about your lost beloved.
Story is great. RP is great. In this game, they're meant to be coupled with the ability to engage in combat encounters and survive them. To do that, a "good character" needs mechanics.
You seem to be arguing that mechanics are worthless. I submit that they are important, just as valid as RP, perhaps even moreso in this particular game system.
no feats huh, so say goodbye to your winged aasimar fighter, your draconic kobold alchemist, or your noble drow rogue. Those are three of my players favorite characters, not ONE of players has the system mastery to be a powergamer. this wouldn't be fair to them.
It's interesting how something simple as "remove feats" can make you re-evaluate their function and purpose.
If anything it seems like there is a core group of feats which should actually not be feats at all and should instead be integrated into class or even the core character mechanics the so called MUST have feats.
You could also quite easily make an argument that you should get a character feat every level not just every odd level. So that taking those MUST have feats is less of a hindrance to character builds who are now under less feat stress.
Or is 10 feats over 20 levels the magical number ? why not 8 or 6 ? why not 12 or 14 ? One extra feat at first level, or one extra feat at 15th level ?
makes you think
| 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.
BWAHAHAHA.... oh, wait... you were serious?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Yeah, if all the class mechanics are rigid there's no way to have fun. Unless, y'know, you're into stuff like 'role-playing!' *chuckle*
How does eliminating choice and diversity make for a better role-playing experience?
It doesn't. He's just a really bad troll.
He did not say that it would "make for a better role-playing experience". He, a bit obnoxiously, indicated that a role playing game could still occur and not be boring. And he's right. It would appeal more, or less, to different people. But I assure you it can be interesting / entertaining and fun. I suspect he's speaking from experience, an experience you may not have had (?). It is a very different game mechanically of course, but no set of mechanics are required for an RPG.
Of course they aren't, but if anyone were really interested in playing mechanic-less RPGs they would be playing pretend with a bunch of friends instead of Pathfinder (which is a ruleset, first and foremost).
Of course if the system was modular then in theory groups could remove the feat module if they didn't want to use it and those who do want to use it could leave it in and both groups would enjoy playing pathfinder.
Why do you feel a specific weapon is required to make a character feel unique or special ?
Weapons DEFINITELY define characters. What do you think of when you picture Indiana Jones? His hat, maybe his jacket, and his WHIP. He-Man? His sword. The Ninja Turtles? Their swords, bo, nunchucks and sais, respectively. You don't NEED to be able to use a particular weapon to role-play, but weapons can figure very heavily into a character concept, even without ever considering game mechanics.
and in your second example Bard and dire flail ?
Half-elf with ancestral arms choose dire flail and levels in bard no dip required.
So every character that wants to use an exotic weapon has to either be a half-elf or dip levels of fighter?
With core classes, base classes, alternative classes, choices within those classes (cavalier orders, ranger style, bloodlines, mysteries etc etc) archtypes, prestige classes and multiclassing I'm just not seeing how there's going to be a significant loss of diversity.I could make an argument that you might see more diversity if the "classic optimized builds" are no longer available.
Depends how you define diversity. If you see almost every single character dipping into fighter as diversity, then I suppose you WILL see it.
Multi-classing on spellcasters who need certain feats will still just as bad as it is currently, for delaying their class features and actual strengths.
There are a lot of feats out there that are character defining without being blandly mechanical. Dazzling Display is kind of cool and flavorful and could definitely fit a character's RP concept, as just one example.
As for prestige classes, you are unlikely to see anyone get into a PrC besides fighters, since every single one has multiple feat requirements. Casters won't be able to pick up any of the Spell Focus feats most of their PrCs require.
Sure, some feats that are mandatory/borderline mandatory should probably be incorporated into the system in a less intrusive way, but their being feats serves to differentiate characters. Someone who is skilled at using a bow can squarely hit their foes even when entangled in a heated melee (Point Blank and Precise Shot), and can loose arrows with great alacrity (Manyshot and Rapid Shot), while someone who has little experience with a bow will have trouble hitting a foe embroiled in such a chaotic situation as combat tends to be, and will be fumbling with their arrows too much to demonstrate especial agility with the weapon. The feats may be a bit bland, but they DO serve a purpose.
Of course if the system was modular then in theory groups could remove the feat module if they didn't want to use it and those who do want to use it could leave it in and both groups would enjoy playing pathfinder.
The amount of additional work that would have been required to make Pathfinder modular is staggering. Class design, monster design, feat design, skill design, the CR system, the spell system and design, race design, PrCs, archetypes...they'd all have to be written in dozens of different ways to account for using everything, or cherry picking one or two facets of the game to remove or use. As others have pointed out, removing feats from PCs but not from monsters will be a pretty big deal. Removing feats also essentially cuts out prestige classes as an option, and forces characters to multiclass, especially in the case of martial characters who are more dependent upon feats than casters are.
At that point, you may as well just give one of the other SCORES of game systems a try instead, or forgo using rules at all and just engage in pure RPing: what you say happens, happens. No adjudication necessary.
You do make some interesting points Yeti1069 let me propose some counters to what you've said.
I dispute that a weapons DEFINE a character sure they can support it but they don't outright define it. You used Indiana Jones as an example sure he had a whip but that didn't define his character as a character he's still the iconic adventuring archaeologist without the whip. Sure people identify the whip with Indi but the character still works without it. Similarly Conan the barbarian would have been just as iconic if he been holding an huge axe or a huge hammer instead of a huge sword. Swap out the Ninja turtles weapon with 4 other ninja weapons and it still works their personalities wouldn't be significantly different if their creators had given them different ones.
As for the example of half elfs and dire flails, it was simply an illustration that in that case there is an option. you say does that mean all exotic weapon character need to dip or be half elfs and to that I say no there are other ways to get exotic weapons other than what you have listed without feats.
As far as diversity goes it does indeed depend on how you define it. I challenge that you need fighter dips to create diversity without feats. If you don't go trying to chase what you could do with feats and instead focus on what you can do without them you'll find plenty of other ways to be diverse. more choice does not automatically mean more diversity.
Look I get that when you take away someone toys its only natural to look for ways to get the feel of the same toy from the ones you've got left, instead of looking more closely at what's left to find new fun and interest.
You make an excellent point about prestige classes and I think someone else has mentioned this as well. However since we're talking hypotheticals you could either a) remove the feat requirements from PrC's or b) turn the feat requirements for a PrC into a bonus feat for entering that PrC. The second option would encourage entering into a PrC to grab the feat.
As far as the work required to make Pathfinder modular to the point certain aspects could be traded out and replaced, sure that's not a small task but weigh that against the benefit of having a system you can now chop and change to offer new ways of playing that still compatible with older modules vs never innovating the rules again vs innovating the rules again with a PF 2.0 and risk alienating part of your player base.
Of course they aren't, but if anyone were really interested in playing mechanic-less RPGs they would be playing pretend with a bunch of friends instead of Pathfinder (which is a ruleset, first and foremost).
A rule set, gee I think I noticed that. The question isn't as simple as mechanics / no mechanics. You know that. It's about just how much do you need. Next to no one would want to play a free form mechanic-less "system" and I doubt anyone would want to play a game whose rules were the size of the full OED. The sweet spot is in between along a line between the two. Different groups will place themselves along different parts of the line between the two extremes. I like feats. I think they add a lot. I also think they are overused in the system and skills are underutilized (for example). Over all I'm fairly happy with the current system, but I don't think it's perfect. Hence I home brew. And I would not get rid of feats :)
You do make some interesting points Yeti1069 let me propose some counters to what you've said.
I dispute that a weapons DEFINE a character sure they can support it but they don't outright define it. You used Indiana Jones as an example sure he had a whip but that didn't define his character as a character he's still the iconic adventuring archaeologist without the whip. Sure people identify the whip with Indi but the character still works without it. Similarly Conan the barbarian would have been just as iconic if he been holding an huge axe or a huge hammer instead of a huge sword. Swap out the Ninja turtles weapon with 4 other ninja weapons and it still works their personalities wouldn't be significantly different if their creators had given them different ones.
Yes, the Turtles could exist with different weapons, but I'd say that, no, Indiana Jones is simply NOT Indiana Jones without his whip; there's just far too much he does with it to leave him intact sans-whip. He swings from it, lassos with it, uses it to retrieve items, affect terrain, disarm bad guys, and attack bad guys. Sure, he spends a fair amount of time in the films not using it, but the things is inextricably linked to the character. In particular, it separates him from the crowd of other adventurers in a fairly significant way.
As far as diversity goes it does indeed depend on how you define it. I challenge that you need fighter dips to create diversity without feats. If you don't go trying to chase what you could do with feats and instead focus on what you can do without them you'll find plenty of other ways to be diverse. more choice does not automatically mean more diversity.
While it is true that more options don't necessarily lead to greater diversity, removing options often results in less diversity. Sorry, but there are just far too many character options tied up as feats for characters to get by without them without making other major changes, and without expecting everyone to splash in classes that grant them bonus feats.
There are PLENTY of iconic abilities taken from characters of fantasy and sci-fi novels, shows, movies, and from mythology that are simply not possible to perform within the frame of Pathfinder without feats. There are MANY character class abilities that simply do not work without feat support (Kolokotroni and others have mentioned some of these, such as the various classes that focus on mounted combat). As far as diversity goes...by removing feats, you force every martial character that doesn't get a LOT of bonus feats to wield either one big weapon, or a sword and shield, since they cannot TWF, can't use archery, or thrown weapons, or crossbows. The same characters likely won't be using reach weapons, because they won't have any way to capitalize on the traits of such implements. Fewer characters will have combat maneuvers, no one will have any of the more interesting uses for skills (intimidating on hits, or to frighten enemies; various acrobatic maneuvers; feinting; running along narrow ledges; rebounding with attacks...). The barbarian, whose main selling point, its iconic niche of being a sturdy heavy-hitter, will be nowhere near the fighter in their ability to kill enemies. While the fighter is Power Attacking and Cleaving through their foes, the barbarian will be smacking enemies for about half as much damage, one at a time. You won't see any ranged paladins, non-finesse rogues. You'll see no one but MOMS monks and fighters with Style feats, which are pretty interesting and enable MANY iconic characters from the wider world of fantasy.
Look I get that when you take away someone toys its only natural to look for ways to get the feel of the same toy from the ones you've got left, instead of looking more closely at what's left to find new fun and interest.
There isn't much to look at. Other than archetypes, there isn't really much of anything to look more closely at with class abilities. It's not like those get discounted by the gaming community because feats are so much better: everything gets taken into account already. I already know what it looks like to play a class essentially without feats: I'm playing a barbarian in one game where the only offensive feat I've taken is Power Attack--the rest of my feats are aimed at being tough as nails and nighe-unkillable--while a friend is playing a heavy-hitting 2-handed fighter in my game with Power Attack, Cleave, and Cleaving Finish (or 3.5 Cleave). My barbarian can take more of beating than his fighter can, but he hits a bit harder than I do at times, and can take out 2 or 3 enemies a round, while I'm clobbering one at a time. If I didn't have the feats making me tougher, I would ONLY be hitting for less damage, less often, with a tiny bit more HP. A paladin without feats has one offensive ability that he gets to use a VERY limited number of times per day, has no access to combat maneuvers, can't use his bond for a mount, because it simply becomes a liability with no way to negate hits (Mounted Combat), or stay out of reach while still being effective (Ride-by Attack).
And I've seen what more characters look like essentially without feats: I've used plenty of out-of-the-box NPCs and monsters whose feats all seem to be things like Alertness and +2 to a save. Even NPCs with classes feel rather dull, unless they're fighters, without some more interesting feat choices.
You make an excellent point about prestige classes and I think someone else has mentioned this as well. However since we're talking hypotheticals you could either a) remove the feat requirements from PrC's or b) turn the feat requirements for a PrC into a bonus feat for entering that PrC. The second option would encourage entering into a PrC to grab the feat.Oh, and casters probably pull even FURTHER ahead of martials (especially wizards, who pull ahead of EVERYONE), thanks to the ability of martials to hit and kill things, employ some degree of crowd control, buff, debuff, gain new options both in and out of combat, and shore up their weaknesses being stripped, while spells, the things already placing casters well ahead of martial characters, remain largely unchanged. Oh, and magic items become less prevalent, which means the characters most dependent upon them are losing something else, as well.
Removing any barrier to entry other than skill ranks and BAB/level/caster level would certainly make some PrCs more attractive, but then you're just changing out the versatility of feats for a system that essentially forces multi-classing. And if you start changing PrCs to be giving feats, instead of costing them, you're just further enforcing that point. In particular, you're going to have a lot of 2 fighter/2 class A/2 class B/1 PrC A/1 PrC B/1 PrC C/10 whatever, and 20 caster class. At which point, I fail to see the goal of the idea. If it's to avoid cheese, or decisions made for mechanical reasons, optimization, you're essentially FORCING that sort of thinking, because you'll have many, many characters that are simply ineffective without some multi-classing, and you substitute complex multi-class combos for the thought that went into feat selection, which seems like a significant step backward, since classes tend to get a little more flavorful if you stick with them.
As far as the work required to make Pathfinder modular to the point certain aspects could be traded out and replaced, sure that's not a small task but weigh that against the benefit of having a system you can now chop and change to offer new ways of playing that still compatible with older modules vs never innovating the rules again vs innovating the rules again with a PF 2.0 and risk alienating part of your player base.
How would this make the game compatible with older modules in a better way than it is currently? Everything would still need updating, one way or the other, and would require a lot of work on the DM's part in any case (and probably more than is required currently). And, really, if you're going to change the game to such a tremendous degree, you're better off just using an entirely different system in the first place.
If it's module compatibility you want, you can simply strip away all of the rules text in a given module to use the rules for whichever system you're using (AD&D, Pathfinder, 3.5, GURPS, d20 Modern, D&D 4E, whatever) and just use the storyline and characters from the module.
Honestly, I think there is a middle ground between never innovating the rules and having to reboot the system, though I'd lean more toward the latter. With the internet, though, and access to errata in real time, there is less and less of a need to make a major edition shift. Add to that OGC, and there's even less of a reason. Sure, some people that have 1st edition printings of the PF CRB will be unhappy with major changes, but they can pencil those in if need be, or just not bother updating at their private tables. PFS already has enough different rules from what can be found in the books that playing without reading a separate document basically doesn't work in a lot of cases.
What exactly is your goal of a feat-less system?
And as for the number of feats granted: I'd be perfectly happy with a new feat every level, but then you have to A) give the fighter some real class features, and B) re-balance a lot of feats and assumptions based around scarcity being a balancing factor. I think part of the thought process behind limiting feats to a degree is to cut down on the number of decisions players have to make: after-all, while options are good, overwhelming players is a possibility. Additionally, feats at every level probably end up detracting from class features.
I also think [feats] are overused in the system and skills are underutilized (for example).
I'll agree with the second part of that. I liked 3.5's Skill Tricks, even if they were under-utilized as well, and without enough support. I should really reread those and bring the rules into my Pathfinder game. I recall at least a couple of my friends REALLY loving those.
Skills could stand to offer some more options, and be a little more usable in some cases, although there is already a significant degree of misunderstanding and confusion surrounding the usage of many skills, so...
Some things should be easier to do without feats, while others should be openly usable without feats, sure, but I also like them on the whole, and feel like they DO add a lot to the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...How does eliminating choice and diversity make for a better role-playing experience?I think Calybos is asserting that characters can be role-played even in a system that is mechanically restrictive. Which is true enough: some systems get by on just one or two stats. Personally I prefer systems with plenty of stats if they're going to be 'combat simulators' (like D&D and Pathfinder) and relatively few stats if they deal with combat cinematically (like Savage Worlds or Amber Diceless).Exactly. Mechanics do not make a good character; roleplaying does.
"A TWF with Weapon Finesse, Improved Initiative, and 18 Dex" is not a character concept: "Dashing Swordsman hunting the crimelord who ordered his beloved's death" is a character concept.
Unless your character concept is dashing because he needs to run away from his enemies because he's taking a -6/-10 on all attacks, you need feats to pull it off.
Yes, the Turtles could exist with different weapons, but I'd say that, no, Indiana Jones is simply NOT Indiana Jones without his whip; .....
Agree to disagree ;)
Sorry, but there are just far too many character options tied up as feats for characters to get by without them without making other major changes, and without expecting everyone to splash in classes that grant them bonus feats....
Again going to have to agree to disagree, I get that certain things will be harder to accomplish but to take a leaf of what other people have been saying "why not play another system", if your group couldn't accommodate a character concept under this system surely you'd just play Pathfinder full instead.
There isn't much to look at.....
Disagree, Rage powers, Discoveries, Mysteries, Bloodlines, Domains, Orders, Patrons etc etc
While I'll concede some of the more traditional classes don't have these built in differentiators many of the new ones do and I believe they do offer considerable diversity within the class without feats.
In particular, you're going to have a lot of 2 fighter/2 class A/2 class B/1 PrC A/1 PrC B/1 PrC C/10 whatever,
Considering that pre-req to bonus feat was a spitball idea I can just as easily spitball, only get bonus pre-req feats from first PrC chosen.
How would this make the game compatible with older modules in a better way than it is currently?
Sorry not explained properly, older "Pathfinder" modules as in the stuff paizo has created post CRB release that a new/variant pathfinder ruleset would be wise to stay compatible with.
What exactly is your goal of a feat-less system?
It's not a featless system, there are still feats just far fewer of them.
I guess a more interesting question to someone who would never play in such a feat poor system would be where is the current PF feat system going to be in 5-10 years time assuming they keep releasing books with more and more feats ?
Sometimes less is more
I think you forgot an end quote somewhere.
Edit: NVM you fixed it.
I think you forgot an end quote somewhere.
Edit: NVM you fixed it.
heheh thanks mate actually created a rather interesting graphical look
Everyone would play human because that one feat has suddenly become the most important racial ability ever. Oh and only fighters can be archers because pretty much every part of archery requires a feat.
Ranger can pick archery feats with their style bonus feats
Monk archetype Zen archer still works as well