yes, what if a feat every levelS. I like these kind of little grammar hiccups.
Maybe, if they made a section for roleplay feats, and every even level you get one roleplay feat, yes, I probably would like that, but even limited to general it would be kinda too much.
note: roleplay feats would be like the tail thing above, not feats that are useless, but not eldritch heritage powerfulness.
|
Ooh.
Yes Bandw. Flavor Feats... I like it.
I already separate out practical skills and knowledge skills (and characters get their skill points differently as well. I give them almost as many points for "useful skills", and then another pool of points for "knowledge skills". I got the idea from Shadowrun.
But yes. The idea of taking flavorful options without it being at the expense of actual usefulness is (IMO) always a good idea.
I house ruled, given the unnecessary feat taxes and such, that you actually get a feat every level. Lets feat-starved builds (TWF Feint Rogue, for example) actually start rolling quicker.
Haven't looked back since. Games run a lot smoother, actually.
I'm digging on that theme, Bandw. I like the Story Feats, but again it's at the cost of not being able to be as effective at certain things.
The only bad thing I can think about this is that a few chosen classes don't need feats, witch or barb are best examples.
Getting an extra rage power or hex(or 2!) every level doesn't seem a desirable action to you? things could get downright crazy with that many rage powers going on a barb. witches would get kinda meh with it (althoughi can see them grabbing a slew of metamagic though so it won't be a pile up on hexes).
It's funny to think that before Pathfinder, we were only getting feats every third level. I don't know how we ever managed.
broken feats and multiclassing abuse
It's funny to think that before Pathfinder, we were only getting feats every third level. I don't know how we ever managed.broken feats and multiclassing abuse
It made fighter almost attractive. You also had to plan for/love the PrCs that took a feat to get in but turn around and gave you two or three feats/feat like abilities and even more later.
It made fighter almost attractive. You also had to plan for/love the PrCs that took a feat to get in but turn around and gave you two or three feats/feat like abilities and even more later.It's funny to think that before Pathfinder, we were only getting feats every third level. I don't know how we ever managed.broken feats and multiclassing abuse
truth be told i always loved that, going prestige always felt like i was going from amatuer to pro.
Thing is what do you do for Fighter since they already get a feat per level.If everyone else gets a feat per level No one going to play a fighter.
Thing is what do you do for Fighter since they already get a feat per level.If everyone else gets a feat per level No one going to play a fighter.
Except for the people who want 30-32 feats instead of 20.
|
|
I'm not sure I agree with that Degoon.
People play fighters because it matches their concept best. A fighter would still have 1.5x the number of feats a non-bonus-feat class has (30 feats over 20 levels is nothing to scoff at).
But; Unless it's a low-level one-shot, I'm not that inclined to play a fighter anyways. Cavalier is just a more fun fighter in many ways - leadership buffs are cool, and IIRC there's now a Cavalier Archetype without a mount, for just a leadership-focused fighter. I'm inclined to consider going Ranger (with or without archetypes) if I'm going for a light armored fighter; or a Magus if I can consider the Arcane Angle; and if I am considering a non-leadership, non-magic fighter, there's a good chance I'll go Barbarian. Many of my character concepts will work equally well in one of those other classes; and I am personally somewhat partial to the Cavalier, Ranger, and Magus. I might even consider making a melee Synthesist Summoner.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The real issue is, unless your decide to arbitrarily split feats into good/bad lists and require a certain number of "bad" ones, that there are certainly enough good/decent feats to fill out a one per level rate and still never see a lot of the mediocre ones.
This would result in characters that have even more of the "optimal" feats and those less chosen feats you wonder about would still be less chosen.
i still like my idea of flavor feats. :/ i want to do it now.
i still like my idea of flavor feats. :/ i want to do it now.
I've considered that before, but ryric does bring up a good point concerning what basis you would use to classify feats into the "flavor" category. Some are obvious, some are not, but avoiding the "I'll know it when I see" rationale would go a long way to making the categories meaningful.
So far as the whole 'roleplaying feats' goes, have you guys just thought about giving people more traits as the game goes on? They aren't particularly powerful but it does give a progressive bonus in a lot of ways that can give you bonuses to saves or crit damage or whatever without the need of making a 'good feat' or 'bad feat' list.
I particularly don't like the idea of giving players a feat every level. While it may help get some builds off the ground sooner (something I wish was more possible with the rules as it stands) some characters would end up having nothing to spend them on unless they're able to hit the prerequisites at the level in the first place, and if they can't it just sort of bloats character sheets unnecessarily unless you allowed people to 'save' feats up or retrain them.
You can never have too many feats.
I ran through making a fighter variant with a 'feat pool', where he could swap out feats in and out from his pool, to give himself versatility, so out of combat time could be skill focus and stuff, and in combat weapon spec.
I then upgraded the feats so he wouldn't have to waste feats on feat chains, i.e. weapon focus for fighters follows through by level up to greater weapon spec, for one feat.
I STILL didn't have enough feats to make the solid level 10 fighter I wanted.
So I let him have all the feats. Two feats per fighter level. Plus bonus feats equal to bravery + Expertise.
It was maybe right where I wanted to be.
---------
In short, you can heap feats and talents onto fighters and rogues, and it won't hurt the classes power at all. All it will do is add a little needed versatility and some defenses.
But other classes? extra rage powers? More magical abilities and spells?
Quite literally, they don't need it.
Your Flavor Feats idea is the best one. Make a specific subsection of feats that are not 'fightin' feats', and let the characters draw from that pool every other level is actually pretty cool. But just throwing bonus feats at characters who don't need them just drives rogues and fighters further into a hole. Why be a fighter when a barbarian can get a feat every level, awesome saves, access to rage powers no combat feat can match, DR, etc etc etc?
How about reframing the question: Every other level, every class gets the equal of a spell like ability once/day equal to 1/3 their level, min 0, rounded down. As they level up, they can choose more powerful effects or use the same effects more then 1/day. How would that change things, instead, ripping the flavor away from spellcasters and giving it to everyone?
==Aelryinth
So far as the whole 'roleplaying feats' goes, have you guys just thought about giving people more traits as the game goes on? They aren't particularly powerful but it does give a progressive bonus in a lot of ways that can give you bonuses to saves or crit damage or whatever without the need of making a 'good feat' or 'bad feat' list.
I'm not actually giving out traits per se, but for the game I'm running I've started to give out what I think of as Fallout style perks, just bonuses that I decide based on their character but bonuses that are beyond normal feat level.
As examples:
1. One guy got the ability of a Cacodaemon to trap souls and he can consume them as an evil outsider. A bit weak, but he is also in the process of earning a specialized, almost artifact tier, item geared toward him.
2. A second player will gain an ability like Wizard's True Name, but the outsider is a custom built NPC with character levels. Story reasons for this; the outsider used to be a party member before dying.
3. Third guy is a party face and incredibly vain (like had a suit custom made and specified it had to cost at least 1,000 gold in materials); when wearing a suit worth at least 500 gold he will get 1/2 level to diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, and bluff. In addition, because his business partners constantly trying to assassinate him, he can now always act in a surprise round.
I kinda like the concept, but it is definitely a larger power boost then your suggestion.
|
|
It'd make some of the longer feat trees more useful beyond niche builds. (like the moonlight stalker tree)
I'd take more of the feats which come up very rarely but are extremely handy when they do.
It'd make throwing weapon builds more viable for rogues/ninjas - too feat intensive to pull off now without dipping into fighter. (takes 6 feats to make it work properly) And the versitility for sneak attack is the main reason to work a throwing build.
Seems a nice idea, personally i would like those extra feats.
I'm digging on that theme, Bandw. I like the Story Feats, but again it's at the cost of not being able to be as effective at certain things.
I almost always pick Magnum Opus , quite like having high performance on pretty much all the PCs i make.
This and always having a familiar/animal companion/eidolon are the only things i keep in mind while making a char.
Heavy Armor Alchemist with martial weapon proficiencies, without having to multiclass. I could just laugh at the Gun Tank for not being man enough to be an actual tank. Might make detaching/reattaching the tumor familiar in combat a bit awkward (well, more so).