Well you could just allow someone to take 2 vmc for all their level feats
feats. The normal one for their 3rd,7th,11th,15th, & 19th level feats.
Then a second vmc for their 1st,5th,9th,13th,& 17th level feats.
That would remove most feats from the game and make for some very interesting characters. Though some classes (fighter & fighter variants)
Would still grant a few feats. A few races do too (looks at human).
But it does remove most feats so maybe this is a way to look.
It still might take some tweaking though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see this working at all.
Being competent at combat for martial characters requires feats. Power Attack, Two Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot, etc. These are basic necessities for martial characters. Removing those as options pretty much means you're forcing everyone to basically play full casters, as they don't need feats to still be good.
My suggestion is to stop trying to beat your head against the wall.
Feats are inherent to pathfinder and removing them changes the game mightily. You'll need to figure out how much to change all of the encounters and play with everything. I suggest switching to a featless game system if you want to do this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats are the opposite of being constricting to me - they're what allows for greater customization and realization of a character concept beyond just what classes can provide.
I also find it appropriate that some methods of fighting/skills/abilities/etc. require more investment of (insert resource here) to work well, with feats being one of those resources. It's simply more difficult to fight competently with a weapon in each hand than it is to swing one weapon with both of your hands, and feats reflect that. While I don't know that I agree with how every fighting method is feat-taxed, I do believe in there being a cost to what you want to do.
|
Anyone already implement a good feat revision/removal system?This is what you're looking for I think.
That's pretty much what I was going to say. You are better off playing 1st/2nd edition D&D if you want to remove feats. It also removes the need for a map and minis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been finding that Feats constrain player options more than they enable actions so I've been debating running a game either entirely without feats or possibly one where feats exist solely to buff numbers to make certain actions more successful. I'd probably use something along the lines of the revised action economy system and add some 'defend other'/'aid another'/'take aim'/'dodge' type simple actions.
Anyone already implement a good feat revision/removal system?
I hear ya. Players often get into a mindset where feats are permissive rather than complimentary. If they don't have a feat, they never try an action related to that feat.
My players never use maneuvers unless they have the Improved Feat. In another game I got into a debate where a player refused to fire his bow from his mount because he didn't have the mounted archery feat - despite th fact that there are literally zero penalties from firing a bow from a mount if the mount has only moved his normal movement speed or less during the round (penalties only kick in when your mount does a double move).
However, everyone else here is also correct in that removing feats becomes a huge burden upon you and completely changes the dynamics of the game (although going back to 2nd edition, like Zahir recommended, would change a whole lot more than just feats).
I recommend simply removing penalties to do things that a feat would normally grant. For example, take out all AoO for any full BAB class doing a maneuver, and then allow maneuver feats to simply enhance maneuvers with a bonus (and keep them as written for the other classes). Or allow casters to create items and do metamagic without the feats - the feats just enhance their ability (for example, without a feat any caster could use any metamagic for an additional +1 level). You can accomplish what you want simply by making every action normally available by feat only to become available to specific classes without the need for a feat - then have the feat just enhance the ability.
That's pretty much what I was going to say. You are better off playing 1st/2nd edition D&D if you want to remove feats. It also removes the need for a map and minis.Anyone already implement a good feat revision/removal system?This is what you're looking for I think.
And with it, you get the horrible THAC0 system, class/race restrictions, level limits, and more.
No; if all he wants to do is change up feats to allow players to do more things, then going backwards isn't a good idea.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely sure how feats "constrain" player options. Are players at your table complaining? Sorry for the skepticism, but I always seem to find GMs who try to fix problems that don't really exist or only exist because they had an unusual vivid experience. My players absolutely hate the problems with the feat system, but they'd riot if I tried to run a game without feats.
If you want a featless game, try D&D 5th Edition. In that game, feats are an optional rule.
I would say to pick the specific feats that you feel are constraining, remove them from your game, and possibly give your players effectively the same abilities as the feat.
Eliminating all feats in a game this dependent on them would be silly. It would unbalance many classes that rely on them to be competitive with others, and you would need to change every monster in the game as they are either built with feats or with the understanding that the players have feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say to pick the specific feats that you feel are constraining, remove them from your game, and possibly give your players effectively the same abilities as the feat.
This is probably the best course of action. I would agree certain feats are unfair, and that their existence actually created situations where you couldn't do things suddenly where everyone had thought you could.
An example is the feat Strike Back. Everyone figured you could ready an action to hit an enemy that attacked you. Then it was released as a feat, so you couldn't. People thought it was reasonable to allow a ranged attack (bow) to still perform a disarm or sunder maneuver. The Archer fighter archetype and subsequent feats in the Ranged Tactics Toolbox made it clear that you couldn't.
Eliminating those sorts of feats and just letting players know they can inherently do those things is one thing. Eliminating all feats is another thing altogether, and if you do it you wont be playing something mechanically close to Pathfinder anymore.
Like Cyrad, I would recommend playing 5th edition D&D. There is a very good system in that edition to remove feats or just limit the variance in feat selection by using the predetermined specializations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you could just let anyone use any feat for which they qualify for
An example is the feat Strike Back. Everyone figured you could ready an action to hit an enemy that attacked you. Then it was released as a feat, so you couldn't.
Wait, what? No, that's not what Strike Back does. It lets you hit back at an enemy that attacks you from outside of your normal reach. Like, a dragon bites you from 20 ft. away, you an ready an action to attack its head when it reaches at you, even though you would normally have to be adjacent to do it. Of bloody course you can ready an action to hit someone who attacks you without a feat.
It does war dragon, I just left out the part about reach from my statement by accident. Before the feat existed people thought you could ready an action to attack the limb or whatever struck at you. Once the feat came out, we learned we needed a feat to ready an action to do it.
How about this one:
Destructive Persuasion
(Combat)
Sometimes, you have to break things if you want people to get your point.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, Intimidate 1 rank.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can attempt to smash an unattended inanimate object while attempting an Intimidate check (see Smashing an Object, Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 173). If you break the object, you gain a bonus to the Intimidate check equal to half its hardness (minimum +1). If you destroy the object, the bonus is equal to its hardness (minimum +1). Creatures intimidated by this feat cannot be affected by it again for 24 hours.
Used to be that destroying an object against the wall was a roleplaying moment that very well seems that it should grant a bonus to intimidate.
Now you need a feat for it. With prerequisite feats.
I've been finding that Feats constrain player options more than they enable actions so I've been debating running a game either entirely without feats or possibly one where feats exist solely to buff numbers to make certain actions more successful. I'd probably use something along the lines of the revised action economy system and add some 'defend other'/'aid another'/'take aim'/'dodge' type simple actions.
Anyone already implement a good feat revision/removal system?
Could always go back to second edition.
It does war dragon, I just left out the part about reach from my statement by accident. Before the feat existed people thought you could ready an action to attack the limb or whatever struck at you. Once the feat came out, we learned we needed a feat to ready an action to do it.
That's a great example of a feat that doesn't need to exist.
That doesn't mean no feats need to exist.
There is some danger with giving all feats for free. Spellcasters are already extremely powerful without giving them all the magic item creations feats and the metamagic feats for free.
This is why I was more focused on a class specific or thematic approach, rather than an entire overhaul.
The list of feats with no prerequisites is pretty significant. The list continnues to grow when you have ability scores that are 13 or higher, and as you gain BAB or caster levels. Heck, at 1st level you could have Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Far Shot, Deadly Aim, Weapon Focus, Rapid Reload, Dodge, Mobility, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightining Reflexes, all of the +2 skill feats, Run, Fleet, Toughness, Endurance, Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise, Improved Unarmed Strike, all of the Improved Combat Maneuver feats, and lots more! Then gaining these qualifies you for even more feats!
It does war dragon, I just left out the part about reach from my statement by accident. Before the feat existed people thought you could ready an action to attack the limb or whatever struck at you. Once the feat came out, we learned we needed a feat to ready an action to do it.That's a great example of a feat that doesn't need to exist.
That doesn't mean no feats need to exist.
Agreed, if you go back and look at my complete statements you will see I was suggesting removing fats like Strike Back or others which seem unnecessarily limiting (by their existence preventing you from doing things you thought you could previously), but not removing feats altogether.
I think the idea that feats by their very existence prevent PCs from doing stuff is a little off base. If the basic rules don't have a mechanic for diverting attacks away from your allies that isn't necessarily because Archon Style stole that option and took it away. Maybe there just wasn't any option specifically like that in the basic rules. I guess you could use Aid Another to boost the ally's AC or jump in front of the ally to grant soft cover though (I forget if there's a rule for an attack accidentally hitting the soft cover)
I guess the DM could just decide what does or doesn't seem "reasonable". Maybe you think anybody with at least Dex 15 or even anybody at all should be able to fight with two weapons and only take a -2 penalty. If so maybe giving out TWF as a universal bonus feat makes sense (with or without the Dex 15 prereq to be able to actually use the feat). You could do the same for Power Attack or maybe even the various Improved maneuver feats.
What sorts of actions do you want to encourage or liberate PCs to perform? Since people are always griping about martial vs caster disparity I'd probably start out giving mostly Combat feats as bonus feats.
Depending on the (nature of the) problem, Scaling Feats could be an idea, as well as changing some of the Feats Prerequisites.
If you Really want to ban/remove Feats, ban Arcane Fullcasters as well.
Try a different system. 3.5 is not for you if you don't like feats. There are some very good systems out there.
If someone wants to do a lot of work, you could turn feats into "points" that feed into a system that boosts capabilities. Something more flexible and loose than feats.
Translation:
I want to play 3.5 without Feats
Play 5th Edition. It's 3.5 Lite.
Feats are optional, only gained in place of Ability Score increases every 4th level, and everyone ends up being a beautiful and unique snowflake that looks, acts, and mechanically is identical to every other member of their chosen race/class out there.
---
Seriously, though.
Feats are a major, MAJOR part of the system.
And, in many/most ways, they have been since 1st Edition.
Feats didn't exist in 1st Ed, but Non-Weapon Proficiencies were like a proto form of both Feats and Skills - depending on the NWP, they either acted like modern day Skills, OR they could act like modern-day Feats.
Gaining extra levels in your NWPs could be like simply gaining Ranks in Skills these days, or they could seem like advancing through a Feat Tree.
Feats also allow players to really customize their characters, and not even just for combat - feats upping Social abilities, item crafting, etc.
Between Feats and Archetypes, for example, a Party of 6 Paladins can all have radically different designs and function completely differently from one another.
Taking away Feats is actually completely COUNTER-intuitive to your idea.
Hell, there are entire d20 System games which remove classes and instead you build your character ENTIRELY with Feats, they're generally so versatile.
If you think that Feats are somehow constrictive to design, I think you seriously need to reevaluate your ability to design characters, 'cause Feats are up their with Archetypes as major ways to customize character.
Don't spend your time reworking an entire system when what you want exists elsewhere. It's totally cool to like and play other systems as well as Pathfinder. I have played lots of systems and PF is my favourite of the D&D/D20 style games.
Branching out will improve your game. All of the Paizo devs play other games.
I like complex systems but you can find what you want in more streamlined games like Savage Worlds, or HARP.
I will use Rolemaster Classic as an example it's close to D&D. It is skill and spell based system with classes (professions). Fighters can learn spells, spell users can use 2 handed swords. It's just harder to learn skills that aren't traditionally part of your profession... If you want you can take a no profession class - jack of all trades type.
What your player does is based on the players skill roll against your (or the monsters) difficulty setting. Skill + bonuses + roll - GM assigned difficulty (or monsters defence). The roll is graded catastrophic failure, failure, partial success, success, amazing success.
It's then up to GM and player to fill in the detail or use what is provided.
Isn't it much easier to either just remove the problematic feats or alternatively create a list of those problem feats and simply say that everybody has them for free?
Isn't it much easier to either just remove the problematic feats or alternatively create a list of those problem feats and simply say that everybody has them for free?
That could potentially make thing way way worst.
It looks like the thinking here is 'If there is a feat for it, one must have that feat to do it'. There are certain cases where this is true (Want Scent as a half-orc? Feat time. Want Power Attack or Deadly Aim bonuses to damage? Grab a feat.), but what feats are you saying restrict one?
Let's take the Destructive Persuasion feat. What's stopping you from just breaking something and doing an Intimidate? Or just Intimidate with a threat of breaking something? It's codifying some bonuses based on the object, yes, but if your barbarian's flexing her Intimidate skill off, just do it.
Some feats are nasty taxes, yes. But I wouldn't junk the whole system. (Especially when you consider 'know how to use weapon' or 'wear armour right' are both feats when they aren't part of your class abilities! What do you do about Exotic Weapon Proficiency or Armour Proficiency, at least for non-terrible items?)