Feats can be very powerful. You'll need to be aware that the players will be much weaker in possibly subtle ways. There are also a number of feats that certain builds and character concepts absolutely require to even play. Two weapon fighting, item creation feats, and proficiency feats come to mind.
Removing feats without affecting the game will require at least as much complexity as just having feats. If you don't mind essentially breaking the game for a lot of playstyles, or throwing out a bunch of house rules left and right, then go ahead.
I have not done this yet. but I have kicked around a few ideas like this. I think it could work but it would make some classes way better and other almost useless. I think maybe pearing down feat and using feet progressively (like two weapon fighting or vital strike becoming improved at the right level and then greater) might work better. you clear some of the feat slog away but classes like the fighter would still be useful
There are going to be certain fundamental gaps in the game. As others have mentioned, alot of things simply stop working. Archery for instance will struggle imensly without precise shot/rapid shot. Dex based characters cant take weapon finesse.
Also what does this mean for classes that get bonus feats as class features? Are you simply removing fighters from the game? What about other classes that get feats?
Honestly I dont think its a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most obvious effect will be that spellcasters will race ahead of martials in terms of power.
Most martial classes rely on feats to provide special abilities that let them compete with spellcasters (which is why most spellcasters don't get bonus feats). Only metamagic feats really influence spellcasting, and even then it's perfectly simple to do without them, plus they're replaceable by rods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since feats not only elevate a character's power level, but also function as the players' biggest way to customize their character outside of their class, this strikes me as a fairly unfun idea.
I did consider replacing feats with "talents," which are stronger, group similar feats together into thematic packages, but characters don't get as many of them.
removing feats from the game essentially takes one of the core, inconic classes, fighters, and makes them completely useless.
Its not just the fighter. The ranger, monk, and to an extent the barbarian will suffer too. Not to mention the rogue if he wants to have a high dexterity.
I also dont think making core only is the best route for feats unless your class choice is also only the core 11. Certain basic options (like an inquisitors teamwork feats) for the newer classes are only expressed in later books as feats.
If your group wants a simpler game I'd suggest just pairing down the material you use. Specifically going core only, or just core and apg only. Cutting out feats is going to create tons of problems.
|
What do people think about a half way option, removing feats from only certain classes?
Edit: Thinking a little more about this. What about just taking out the feats that explicitly deal with square counting during combat. One goal is to remove the need of a combat grid.
Edit2: Note we only use Core rules (i.e. base classes).
Removing feats in any form is going to cause balancing issues, especially if you only target certain classes (ESPECIALLY). And unbalanced classes = people who can't fight as well due to power balance will have less fun.
If you want to transition to gridless combat, that's already made easy in PF because you can just translate everything from "squares" to "feet" and feet is easier to abstract than squares.
|
|
Removing feats in any form is going to cause balancing issues, especially if you only target certain classes (ESPECIALLY). And unbalanced classes = people who can't fight as well due to power balance will have less fun.
If you want to transition to gridless combat, that's already made easy in PF because you can just translate everything from "squares" to "feet" and feet is easier to abstract than squares.
Many feats effect 5' or need exact square counts to function 'mathematically' - tumble for example. We have tried RAW without grid but it becomes a nightmare when taking into account 5' steps and responses like Step Up feat.
a good way to think of gridless is instead of squares as an array, you make it however wide the enemies or party want it to be, and then you just record what lane your in and how far from the enemy in that lane you are. there's also the possibility of using a laptop or other computer to record locations and display them.
Allowing only bonus feats is one way to go. It takes out a bunch of feats from the game and characters without causing too much of a change to class balance for fighters and classes with bonus feats.
Banning any feats that interact with a grid is another way to go.
Inthink if you want to go without feats to make the game simpler. You are better of using a system that is simpler. There are plenty of good systems out there. But the amounts of work you would need to put in to remaking the game without feats. And the group of full casters that you would have as the PCs because this would be a major nerf for martials. Sounds like it is complicating stuff.
If some one want a simple game help them make a character and give them a simple built.
|
|
Allowing only bonus feats is one way to go. It takes out a bunch of feats from the game and characters without causing too much of a change to class balance for fighters and classes with bonus feats.
Banning any feats that interact with a grid is another way to go.
I really like this idea, thanks. Only bonus feats and perhaps remove the feats that specifically interact with the combat mechanics at the 'grid' level.
Really awesome advice. I'll likely suggest his to the guys, but I think worth a bash for sure.
Appreciated,
S.
^ This will force most martials to Pick a figthe level or 2 to get power attack.
wait, OP do you mean playing with out a grid or playing without any physical representation on the table at all...as in theatre of the mind, etc?
^ This will force most martials to Pick a figthe level or 2 to get power attack.Not seeing that as a problem, just a feature ;)
but it is not gonna make any thing less complicatet.
The removing a combat map will some how speed things up, i belive.
I do theater of the mind for combat as well.
I houserule any feat with a movement aspect so that it remains useful. If we can't agree on what it should even do we just don't use that particular feat.
Something like step-up should give an opportunity attack against casters and archers who try and get out of melee with people even if they use the withdraw action. That may be a little more powerful than the feat as written but a slight buff to feats woudn't be bad in pretty any case.
|
My group will usually have a battlemat available, but will generally just use "theater of the mind" instead. At the beginning of combat general distances are given, and specific location is much more general. Most tactical movement is done in question and answer form. As an example, two melee PCs charge the same enemy. The next round they each say they would like to be taking 5' steps to flank. Assuming the creature is medium, the first PC moves, then the second moves into flank. Yes, sometimes space "hops" happen where the distance was 100', you moved 30', then took a 5' step, then charged the enemy even though your move is 30'. When you go grid-less you generally get more handwavy about tactical positioning.
You could even use spell ranges (short, medium, and long) to define broad distance categories, then just adjudicate based on character speed how long it takes to move from one range to the other.
As far as removing feats, I would suggest using scaling feat trees (TWF tree, vital strike tree, etc.), and just give each character one tree at level 1. Fighters pick 2 trees, and monks and rangers get a second tree that advances at half rate based on their bonus feat options. Other "bonus feat" mechanics do nothing. As an aside, I'd suggest giving rogues a second tree at half rate of their choosing; they need it. You will have to make several feat trees, hopefully putting every feat in the CRB in at least one tree. Just my 2cp on this idea.
|
I think you're setting on fire the baby while trying to get rid of the bath water.
If you want to play gridless, do so. I play in a 3.5 campaign that's griddless, and it works well enough. Occasionally we use a wad of paper to make a sketch of the combat area, to show where obstacles are and such. Often we don't even do that. It works pretty well.
Feats don't have a whole lot to do with the grid. Only a handful of feats are really about the grid. 90% of them aren't related to the grid.
Meanwhile, the game element that is the most related to the grid is actually the spells with an area of effect. If you want to use "battlefield control" spells, you basically need a map of the area in which combat is taking place, to determine where you want to drop spells to control that battlefield. And then you tend to need a grid to determine just how big the AoE is, whether anyone can get around and so forth.
Two other elements are strongly grid-related: Attacks of Opportunity and archery.
AoOs started (more than a decade ago) as a neat way to determine whether a wizard in melee could get away with spellcasting, and to make sure people couldn't just randomly walk past a fighter to get at the wizard standing behind him. This, I think, is something that's fairly legitimate to address.
Archery: if you go gridless, it can be rather arbitrary how many rounds of archery you have before an enemy comes into melee range. Having measurable distances and movement rates makes this less arbitrary. As soon as it's more than two characters racing at each other (or trying to keep a distance), it gets complex. Determining how close A is to B is to C is to D, is a lot easier with a 2D map.
----
So, there are reasons to use a grid. Not so strong that you HAVE to use one. But feats have fairly little to do with it. Most feats do things that have nothing at all to do with grid combat.
|
|
AoOs started (more than a decade ago) as a neat way to determine whether a wizard in melee could get away with spellcasting, and to make sure people couldn't just randomly walk past a fighter to get at the wizard standing behind him. This, I think, is something that's fairly legitimate to address.
Much more than a decade ago :)
AoO's were in 1e AD&D, just not called that. Still, I get your point.
Cutting a big section of the game mechanics out, like feats, is just going to make the whole thing much more difficult for you and your players. Suddenly different classes and builds become more or less viable, monsters become weaker or stronger and the whole thing just falls apart. Pathfinder and 4e are both designed as restrictive systems and trying to play them in freeform or mess around too much with the rules is like putting a square peg in a round hole.
If you are interested in a featless system that functions OK without a grid, why not try ADND 2e? It has its quirks but still functions perfectly well. It also has some AMAZING splat books.
What do people think about a half way option, removing feats from only certain classes?
I could potentially see some benefit in, rather than removing feats entirely, creating class builds/archetypes that are built around mandatory feats/feat chains, rather than allowing players to choose their own feats.
It could accomplish two things: simplifying the game in terms of chargen, and keeping a tighter rein on potential problems with certain feats by allowing the GM to control which feats are used in his games.
Caveat: It would obviously require more up front work on behalf of the GM to build out classes that way, particularly if you wanted to provide a range of options for your players (for instance, a melee fighter and a ranged fighter, etc.)
Caveat to the Caveat: There are a lot of build guides and such that would help to lay the groundwork for such a system, if you should choose to go that way. Many (most?) of them do a decent job of explaining the pros and cons of different feats, and even ways in which they might be problematic to the game.
|
|
If you are interested in a featless system that functions OK without a grid, why not try ADND 2e? It has its quirks but still functions perfectly well. It also has some AMAZING splat books.
I agree that 2e is an excellent system. However, the multi-classing etc of d20 is appealing. I likely have played my most D&D under 2e, but d20 for better or worse, is still the flavor of the 21st century (warts and all).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are interested in a featless system that functions OK without a grid, why not try ADND 2e? It has its quirks but still functions perfectly well. It also has some AMAZING splat books.I agree that 2e is an excellent system. However, the multi-classing etc of d20 is appealing. I likely have played my most D&D under 2e, but d20 for better or worse, is still the flavor of the 21st century (warts and all).
As you have said, the main appeal of 3.x is the multiclassing - and more generally - the ability to customise your character to a much greater extent than other editions of DnD. By getting rid of feats you are somewhat shooting yourself in the foot: why reduce the only big advantage 3.x has over earlier (and later)editions (IE player customisation)?
|
|
I've been playing without a battle mat for a VERY long time and it works out quite well. For the most part all I did was drop the Attack of Opportunity mechanic from the game. It works out really well and speeds the game up considerably. It's perfectly reasonable to maintain certain aspects of the AoO mechanic such as ranged weapons and spells in close combat without using the movement based ones. This puts it more in keeping with the way free attacks worked in 2E.
Once the battlemat is gone combats become more dynamic and cinematic. You can have characters jump across tables or swing on ropes or so on. Difficult terrain and positioning and all that can be played by ear to allow what works best for the situation. You don't need to count squares you can just approximate and tell players they have the distance to close and attack or maybe just close. if they want to dive behind a foe to gain a flank let them roll Acrobatics to get into position, otherwise they can't really jockey around and must shift into position next turn.
It really makes the game much simpler and I recommend it. It's still important to have a sketch or whatnot of the battlefield so people know where things are around them, but I just use a little drawing of the room, usually to scale, and it works out just fine.
Although it may seem like it is the other way around, I have come to the conclusion that feats are the meat that the class abilities and other mechanics wrap around.
I agree with other posters that the removal of feats is not the solution for the problem you think you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the battlemat does not work for everyone. I tried a game like that as a GM and player, and I did not like it.
|
|
Removing the battlemat does not work for everyone. I tried a game like that as a GM and player, and I did not like it.
You're absolutely right, it really isn't for everyone. Just like using it isn't for everyone. I run my home games without it, but my public PFS games use it and I'd much rather get rid of all the minis and square counting.
^ This will force most martials to Pick a figthe level or 2 to get power attack.
Rangers can get it at level 2 as well. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are interested in a featless system that functions OK without a grid, why not try ADND 2e? It has its quirks but still functions perfectly well. It also has some AMAZING splat books.I agree that 2e is an excellent system. However, the multi-classing etc of d20 is appealing. I likely have played my most D&D under 2e, but d20 for better or worse, is still the flavor of the 21st century (warts and all).As you have said, the main appeal of 3.x is the multiclassing - and more generally - the ability to customise your character to a much greater extent than other editions of DnD. By getting rid of feats you are somewhat shooting yourself in the foot: why reduce the only big advantage 3.x has over earlier (and later)editions (IE player customisation)?
Feats are the only big advantage?
Consistent ability score mechanics without bonuses on a bell curve, consistent d20 game mechanics, skills not so based on stats, one xp chart, no racial level limits, no racial class restrictions, sneak attack over backstab, material available, having a CR system, templates, full monster stats, ascending AC, three saves, etc.
Tastes vary.
|
|
Hi,
My group and I have been throwing around the idea of not using Feats at all in our new PF game. Has anyone tried this? Any major issues? Feats add a layer of complication and sometimes trap new players that we were wondering if we could just drop.
Thoughts and suggestions?
Cheers,
S.
How about instead:
Everyone gets Power Attack and Combat Expertise for free.
Weapon Finesse applies automatically to any weapon that it can be applied to.
Then don't allow any feats that aren't in the CRB. You can still run a perfectly cromulent game with that smaller selection.