[StupidIdea]Accomplishments Instead of Feats

[Ancient History]

Feats are at once kinda nifty and suck mightily. They represent ways to expand on your character and their abilities which are not always tied to class or level, and because you pick them out they allow a level of flexibility often missing from D&D. That said, they have many problems: they are fiddly, there are hundreds of them (often poorly balanced or outright unbalancing), and many of them become useless at various levels, particularly if they offer a static bonus.

So, today's stupid idea: replace feats with Accomplishments.

They're like feats, except that instead of picking them out when you hit level X, you're awarded them whenever you meet the prerequisites. They never grant a static bonus, but expand the options and abilities of your character in some fashion. This still makes them fiddling and potentially unbalancing, but perhaps slightly less so. Feats without prerequisites - like, say, Eschew Materials - either get prerequisites, or can be learned just by taking the time to learn them. So, if you're in a game that actually pays attention to weapon proficiencies, maybe if you use a specific Exotic Weapon for two adventures, you gain the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

[JigokuBosatsu]

This is a great idea, but like communism, requires robots to function properly. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in another thread and the general idea is that not only is record-keeping a nightmare, but it derails the game when the party's fighter insists on killing "just 23 more goblins" to get the Goblin Stomper Perk Accomplishment.

[codeGlaze]

Pretty sure RoW touched on that. Between exploita and scaling feats... you cover a lot of that.

Pathfinder also has GM awarded feats for characters... achievments I think.

...or maybe that was some wiki homebrew...
Aside from that, basically class abilities are that as well.

I think I know what you're trying to accomplish, organic scaling, character growth. That seems to be something a lot of us have thought about... and never came to a satisfactory solution for.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Terrible idea, for several reasons.

[*] You have the problem of certain crybabies saying that they WANT the Goblinstomper achievement and will hold the game hostage until goblins show up in the middle of the Fire Plains adventure.
[*] The mechanical benefits tempt people to derail their character concept for no reason other than the said benefits. Even when the player has no intention of holding the game hostage and is given the organic choice between tracking her long-lost brother within the pirate fleet (ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Privateer Hunter) achievement) and taking on the goblin armies (ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Goblinstomper), it's lame as fuck if she drops the quest to rescue her brother (which otherwise she really wanted to do) because it doesn't give the +2 bonus to AC and attack rolls against small creatures that she wants.
[*] When you standardize accomplishments they lose all sense of, well, accomplishment. The story of how you got 5 Regen as a reward from being soaked in troll-blood for several days while hacking through the troll armies is worth telling; it's not worth telling if every group shoehorns their frontline fighters through the 'accomplishment' to get the benefit.

This goes right back to selected magic items v. randomized magic items. Even people like me who prefer random magic items find selecting them acceptable within certain game constraints -- 3E D&D's would work find for me if the numbers were sane, but I'll never like 4E D&D's -- absolutely do not feel the same way about in-game accomplishments. Editing the plot so that you always fight a convenient troll army when you reach level 6 is much more contentious, WSoD-breaking, and flat-out boring than editing the plot so that you always find a +3 sword when you reach level 6.

[Wiseman]

We already had a topic about this.

[hogarth]

As noted, the problem with achievements is that grinding is bad.

Pathfinder also has GM awarded feats for characters... achievments I think.

...or maybe that was some wiki homebrew...

The Legacy of Fire (3.5) adventure path had Achievement Feats, which combined the grinding of achievements with the requirement to light a resource on fire of feats. The best of both worlds!

In Ultimate Campaign, there are Story Feats that are regular feats that unlock an improved form once you finish your grinding story arc.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/characterBackground/storyFeats.html

[Ancient History]

Yea and it had often been said, there are no original stupid ideas. Thanks for the links, chaps.

[echoVanguard]

Tangentially related: Aspect Hierarchies and Aspects as Advancement in FATE

echo

[deaddmwalking]

I could see something like 'prestige feats' if you were building your own setting/system.

Essentially, when your PCs complete an adventure, there would be an option to pick up a new power that's not already in the core book.

If you complete the adventure on the Plains of Fire, PCs could pick up Resist Fire or, +2d6 damage to Fire based spells, or Friend to Fire Creatures (bonus on Diplomacy for Fire Creatures) or what have you. These would be available based on the adventure, so if using existing adventures you potentially have to come up with a bunch of them.

They could then be awarded as Bonus Feats (or, if you've increased the number of Feats acquired significantly, slot it into the available Feats).

But the Feats should not be based on a specific action or number of creatures killed (grinding) - so much as successfully completing the adventure. If the PCs manage to defeat the Goblin King without killing a single goblin, then maybe you don't offer them Goblin Stomper as a Prestige Feat (again, assuming it wasn't already in the core options) and if you wrote the adventure, they never know that it COULD have been a possible boon if they had killed a few of the goblins.

[TarkisFlux]

While Lago's points are mostly valid (I'd dispute the one about ditching your brother to go fight the goblin armies), they sort of missed the part where you said no static bonuses. They're still problematic, but it's worth noting that planar touchstones work in a similar fashion and no one really complains about them. So tying them to location rather than accomplishment and passing them out more like treasure for completing / conquering a particular crawl / site / whatever might work better.

[Lago PARANOIA]

While Lago's points are mostly valid (I'd dispute the one about ditching your brother to go fight the goblin armies),

What's there to dispute? I'm sure you've heard the bitter complaints about everyone deciding that their character was from Windrise Ports or every blaster wizard took Feeble and Noncombatant. If you give people the choice between mechanically effective or advancing the story in a way that they wanted, a lot of people are going to choose the latter.

they sort of missed the part where you said no static bonuses.

Personally, I find that to be a facile and meaningless distinction.

[vagrant]

Isn't the solution to make advancing the story and being mechanically effective one and the same?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Isn't the solution to make advancing the story and being mechanically effective one and the same?

No, for the same reason why having CHA be a dump stat for everyone actually hurts the game less than having CHA be a god stat for some people and a dump stat for others.

[John Magnum]

Can you explain how the CHA thing works, Lago? I'm not familiar with that particular claim.

[vagrant]

Yeah, same here. Isn't have different strengths and weakness part-and-parcel of having a believable character?

[hogarth]

I could see something like 'prestige feats' if you were building your own setting/system.

Essentially, when your PCs complete an adventure, there would be an option to pick up a new power that's not already in the core book.

If you complete the adventure on the Plains of Fire, PCs could pick up Resist Fire or, +2d6 damage to Fire based spells, or Friend to Fire Creatures (bonus on Diplomacy for Fire Creatures) or what have you. These would be available based on the adventure, so if using existing adventures you potentially have to come up with a bunch of them.

They could then be awarded as Bonus Feats (or, if you've increased the number of Feats acquired significantly, slot it into the available Feats).

The (3.5E) War of the Burning Sky adventure path experimented with this idea by giving out permanent boosts in lieu of monetary treasure. E.g. if you beat a scary boss monster (say), then you get permanent immunity to fear and that takes up a chunk of your wealth-by-level based on what the equivalent magic item would be worth.

[TarkisFlux]

While Lago's points are mostly valid (I'd dispute the one about ditching your brother to go fight the goblin armies),

What's there to dispute? I'm sure you've heard the bitter complaints about everyone deciding that their character was from Windrise Ports or every blaster wizard took Feeble and Noncombatant. If you give people the choice between mechanically effective or advancing the story in a way that they wanted, a lot of people are going to choose the latter.

You were complaining that it's lame, but I don't see it as any more lame than people taking quests or side-quests based on loot results rather than story concerns. Which I don't really care about. It can lead to similarly kitted out characters in the same way that the trait nonsense can, but there are payments in plot for it rather than bullshit creation tradeoffs. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem because <playstyle reasons>, I'm just saying that it's the smallest problem up there and likely glossed over for plenty of games.

they sort of missed the part where you said no static bonuses.

Personally, I find that to be a facile and meaningless distinction.

I was referring to your choice of examples, not the relative lack of difference between them with respect to player motivation.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can you explain how the CHA thing works, Lago? I'm not familiar with that particular claim.

Imagine that CHA is a dump stat in a combat-heavy game that affects nothing but a measure of how much you're the protagonist, As in, how many peasants you inspire, how many princesses you woo, how many surrenders you negotiate. Like in most interpretations of D&D. In this setup your choices are on a gradient ranging from 'good at combat/bad at being the protagonist' to 'vice versa'.

Now, while this setup can still be subjectively fair (depending on what proportion of characters have CHA and how much weight the game gives to non-combat screentime) people still complain bitterly about this. And for good reason, too, because among other things -- like the conceit being genre inappropriate -- it's pretty easy to design a game where people aren't put in this double bind.

Now, a game where CHA allows you to have your cake and eat it, too -- like for a sorcerer -- is automatically unbalanced. Everyone else still has to choose how much they want to be the protagonist or how good they want to be in combat. Unless everyone is on this setup, the best you can hope for is to have some 'Timmy' classes and some 'Big Boy' classes. More likely you'll have a setup where the Paladin and Sorcerer get the lion's share of the screentime all of the time.

Accomplishment feats have much the same dilemma. Granted, the absolute value of the screentime and story control may still be the same, but if it's in a direction that the player doesn't want the effect works out the same. But this isn't true for all characters; some people would've written their character as defeating the troll hordes and becoming the Goblinstomper of the East anyway. You've given these people desire screentime and power while everyone else has to choose one or the other.

Yeah, same here. Isn't have different strengths and weakness part-and-parcel of having a believable character?

Every Ranger having the Slayer of the Iceland Trollhordes -- especially if the DM has to write in a quick edit as to why and how there were Icelander trolls in their story -- strains believability in a way that every ranger having Weapon Focus or a pair of +3 small weapons do not.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You were complaining that it's lame, but I don't see it as any more lame than people taking quests or side-quests based on loot results rather than story concerns.

Firstly, people taking quests or side-quests based on expected loot results is seriously the lamest kind of adventure that people non-parodically embark on. The sidequest of Roy Greenhilt getting Starmetal is easily the most boring and uneventful arc in Order of the Stick -- the only reason why people cared about it at all is because the author inserted plot elements that proved to be important later. The consequences and subplots were interesting, but the actual sidequest was not.

Secondly, the more specific the end result the more people will have to stick their dicks in the plot to achieve it. A sidequest of 'find Masamune!' can take on a huge number of forms that 'kill 8 trolls in one-on-one combat' or 'sink 4 fully-crewed pirate ships' cannot.

Which I don't really care about. It can lead to similarly kitted out characters in the same way that the trait nonsense can, but there are payments in plot for it rather than bullshit creation tradeoffs. I'm not saying that it isn't a problem because <playstyle reasons>, I'm just saying that it's the smallest problem up there and likely glossed over for plenty of games.

Oh? Explain which part of these aren't problems:

[*] It forces the DM and other players to intrude on the plot in specific ways. It can range from 'barely noticeable' if it's something like a greatsword drop or 'campaign redefining' if it's something like killing slavers.
[*] It encourages people to promulgate plot hooks in ways that will give a mechanical benefit instead of, you know, what they want. Again, I emphasize, people are seriously peeved by the best warriors being snarly antiheroes due to the Selfish and Loner traits or Windrise Ports producing the best druids. And that's just in the CharGen portion. You vastly underestimate how much it would get on peoples' nerves the fourth time they hear a party wizard go 'dude, we have to make a pilgramage to Level Forest, I really need that extra square to my range'.
[*] A story that everyone does is not a story that's worth telling. A story in which you found corruption in the Lawful Good church hierarchy as a third-level clerical cleric can be one worth telling; a story in which every fourth cleric had the same plot will simply not be. All it is is just obvious filler where the best you can hope for is that the DM or players inserts cool plot hooks in spite of the actual story.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Or instead of reading my long-winded rants, why don't I just distill what fucking sucks about Accomplishment Feats into a single prestige class?

That's right, it's Elothar time, bitches.

[hyzmarca]

Accomplishments, here's how you do it.

Provide a chart of appropriate level bonuses, possibly with point values that allow mixing and matching, that can be granted at the end of an adventure. That's it. That's all the DMG needs to give out.

The Players and the DM can then look at that list and pick out what bonuses they'll get.

The players and DM then come up with an in-story justification for that bonus and make up a cool Accomplishment name.


Thus you have flexibility it isn't stupid.

[deaddmwalking]

Lago,

It seems that you're complaining if you add a 'quest reward' that everyone will undergo the same quests for said rewards.

I don't think that necessarily follows.

Every quest has potential rewards, whether it be treasure, reputation, or forwarding the PCs agenda. Usually PCs will have a sense of the relative value of such a quest, but not the specific 'drop'.

If you try to save the Feywood, you can anticipate the gratitude of the fey. The specific form that takes might be harder to anticipate.

If the PC gains a 'prestige feat' (or access to one) after completing the quest, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Galadriel's Gifts would be similar in vein.

If the Prestige Feat requires something stupid, like sinking four pirate vessels, then yes, acquiring it will be stupid. But if they're tied to quest completion, they don't have to fall into that trap.

The larger issue is how you separate 'quest completion rewards' from standard feats and talents. But if they're available for completing a particular quest and the PCs largely don't know the specific rewards (any more than they know what specific items are in a dragon's hoard) you minimize the issues that you appear to be concerned about.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Every quest has potential rewards, whether it be treasure, reputation, or forwarding the PCs agenda. Usually PCs will have a sense of the relative value of such a quest, but not the specific 'drop'.

Not at all. Some quests or plot arcs give you nothing or actually set you back. And even quests that do provide you with something at the end aren't going to give you equal rewards. The quest of 'build a keep in the Hinterlands staffed with skeletons as a demanse for the PCs' takes up just as much narrative space and can be just as satisfying as the 'overthrow the Iron Bank Lords of Azure City', but it'd be inane to expect as much of a reward in treasure/reputation/story advance for the former as for the latter.

If you try to save the Feywood, you can anticipate the gratitude of the fey. The specific form that takes might be harder to anticipate.

Believe it or not, this is actually even worse than giving people the damn accomplishment for sinking four pirate ships. Not only are you hammering in the plot hook but you're also hammering in the resolution. An accomplishment feat that has 'gain the gratitude of the Feywild' as a prerequisite not only railroads the story such that it precludes the outcome of 'burn down the Feywild' or 'gain the suspicion but brokered peace of the Feywild' but it also precludes the 'slowly gain trust of the Feywild over the course of the campaign' or even 'do a good but not relationship-defining favor for the Feywild, do some other things, then come back and do the great thing' as outcomes.

Seriously, I have no idea how you're supposed to be rescuing this idea by proposing an even worse scenario.

[Wiseman]

I think that if your going to have special quest achievement awards, they can't actually be written down or hammered out anywhere. It would have to be decided on an individual basis by the DM. If you write down a solid reward for things like "save the feywood" or "kill 100 gnolls" or whatever some players will have read the appropriate sourcebooks, decided they like the ability, and then derail the campaign to get said ability, doing stupid things like "I look for the nearest gnoll village," or asking, "So, is the feywild in danger?"

So, in short, hammering down any solid mechanics for this is probably a bad thing.

[hogarth]

I think that if your going to have special quest achievement awards, they can't actually be written down or hammered out anywhere. It would have to be decided on an individual basis by the DM. If you write down a solid reward for things like "save the feywood" or "kill 100 gnolls" or whatever some players will have read the appropriate sourcebooks, decided they like the ability, and then derail the campaign to get said ability, doing stupid things like "I look for the nearest gnoll village," or asking, "So, is the feywild in danger?"

The "achievements as treasure" technique is far from perfect, but I don't think it suffers from that problem, as long as you avoid having a one-to-one correspondence between enemies and achievement awards. For example, you wouldn't necessarily know that fighting a gnoll chieftain would give you a +2 bonus to Con (say) any more than you would know that fighting a gnoll chieftain would give you a Belt of Con +2.