Feats and PrCs--How should they be handled?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:44 pm

So the Races of Eberron review has me thinking about Feats and PrCs (and to an extent, Classes in general) should be handled, especially in Midgard, which I keep wandering back to when I feel like writing/have something to write down for it.

What should feats and PrCs be in D&D or a game like it? Or what are the best ways to handle them?

I think PrCs could have been fine if the published ones were tied to organizations, either specific, like the Mage of the Arcane Order, or general, like Assassin--which should have been called Guild Assassin, and then non-organizational PrCs were discussed in length the same way the DMG talked about making new classes, maybe give class making it's own chapter and have it written by someone whose head is not firmly wedged up their ass, with a few pages given over to discussing level-appropriate abilities (I generally look at spells and say "ok, a wizard first gets this at level X. If I want it at will, it should probably be ~X+2 or 3, but that's just me).

Feats seem like they could be fine as smaller effects if you got more of them, or if the way you got them was reworked (maybe some kind of Feat point system, where you have a refreshing pool of points each day and you spend them to use a feat rather than having to write feats down on your sheet and never change them?), but could also be fine if they were larger effects and you got only a few of them.

And then what value is a feat compared to a class ability? A lot of classes imply that they are roughly equal (fighter, wizard) but then other classes, often PrCs, imply that some feats are worth only a third or a fourth of a total level of abilities.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:57 pm

Legend does a decent job of presenting a bunch of feats, some of which let you do new things, and others of which make you better at doing an old thing. The ones that scale do so at most two or three times, so they're not quite as complex as Tome feats are. Not every feat is useful to every character build, obviously. But the last time I checked, given a feat, you could probably conceive of a character that would want it. (The issue with Legend's feats is the same issue with everything else in Legend, which is that the scope of the game is horribly narrow.)

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:58 pm

Feats seem like they could be fine as smaller effects if you got more of them, or if the way you got them was reworked (maybe some kind of Feat point system, where you have a refreshing pool of points each day and you spend them to use a feat rather than having to write feats down on your sheet and never change them?), but could also be fine if they were larger effects and you got only a few of them.

This is kind of cool, but would be super unwieldy at the table. I can just imagine someone spending hours flipping through various books trying to find the feat he knows exists that would be just perfect for the situation, but can't remember what it's called or what book it's in.

No matter what design you go with, you have to keep what the player is able to use in combat limited to some finite number of abilities that they have a quick reference list for. Wizards may have thousands of spells, but they'll have at most 40 or so available at any given time, and maybe 10-15 of those that are actually relevant.

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:00 pm

I think that one thing you would want to avoid is being overly specific with requirements. Races of Eberron has feats that are Nationality, Race, Class and Class ability specific. The problem with something like that is it has to be sufficiently strong enough to be worthwhile or else it will never, ever be taken and you'll look like a fool for printing it. However, if it is too strong, you'll get a bunch of characters that just are written simply to qualify for "Oh My God, did they really print that?" and all of a sudden every campaign has a Gnome from Magog Mountain who wears a monocle and specializes in Divination magic.

Stay away from B.S. "gatekeeper" feats and make each feat worth taking on its own. You know, Point Blank shot when everybody really just wants Point Blank Shot. Dodge and Mobility when everybody just wants Spring Attacks. Combat Expertise is a huge example in 3.5, too, but I'm sure you can come up with a bunch of crummy Gatekeeper feats. You know what the feats are.

Tactical feats like Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, stuff like that with lowered requirement should be the template. Tome Feats are a great start because those Feats are a Really Big Deal in mechanics and flavorful differentiation. Stay away from B.S. like "+1 with a weapon" or "+X with a skill."

Also, if something looks like a Feat Tax just put it into the class or make it a combat action, like Power Attack or Natural Spell. If you have Math Holes, don't print "hot fixes" like they did in 4E. Just change the classes.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:54 pm

Prestige classing should be A] mandatory, B] happen at specific levels, and B] ignore what class you're coming into it from.

Duelist should set your BaB to 7, then advance you from there. Assassin should give you a death attack and 10*(6+Int) skill points at first level, to be spent using the Assassin class skills list. Red Wizard should have you get some 4th level prepared spell slots, drawn from the Red Wizard spell list. If you were a fighter before you were a Duelist, you now have a BaB of 7, the ability to add +Int to AC and the mockery of your peers for taking levels in Duelist. If you were a fighter before becoming an Assassin, you now have a BaB of 6, skill points and a Death Attack. If you were a fighter before you became a Red Wizard, you have a BaB of 6 and 4th (but no 1st through 3rd) level spells.

Feats are the opposite. They should be available at level one and give you things which are appropriate to have at level one. And they should be either horizontal power boosts that apply just as well at all levels, or they should scale to level. Having the "option" of taking Dodge as your 9th level feat is just insulting.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:16 am

Feats need less bullshit requirements, if any.

Feats need to either be...
a) Something that is good at all/most levels
b) A single ability that scales with level in some way to remain good at all/most levels
c) good at SOME level of play and either not available before that, or easily re trainable to something else after that, or, as appropriate, both.

One thing that running and expanding on Races Of War taught me back in the day. Feats should not provide multiple entirely new benefits kicking in at various arbitrary levels you need to keep track of.

Everything else mostly just taught me that feat trees are bad and shit feats are shit.

My opinions on prestige classes are limited and less useful, these days I don't really bother with class based mechanics period.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:25 am

It was suggested a few years back in the "Include this in 5e or I will FUCK YOUR FACE" thread, to have feats grant templates that alter the very nature of your character and I reckon I still stand by this.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:01 am

Grek wrote: Feats are the opposite. They should be available at level one and give you things which are appropriate to have at level one. And they should be either horizontal power boosts that apply just as well at all levels, or they should scale to level. Having the "option" of taking Dodge as your 9th level feat is just insulting.

Perhaps have feats be level-gated, level-specific options as well. So no, you don't even have the option of taking Dodge as your 9th level feat. It would take some measure of discipline to devise things this way, so never mind. Game devs can't do math and can't be fucked to hold to design restrictions, so fuck everything.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:06 am

No, they really can't be. If you make any feat level specific, that means that all the feats have to be level specific in order for that to be balanced. And if you make all of your feats level specific, what you're really doing is just decreasing the number of useful feats people get at any given level. Which is fucked.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:06 am

Pull your choice of feats out of a hat (or tarot deck, or what have you) so at the end of your career, you're some Nuzlocke Challenge-esque thing of beauty.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:37 am

Grek wrote:No, they really can't be. If you make any feat level specific, that means that all the feats have to be level specific in order for that to be balanced. And if you make all of your feats level specific, what you're really doing is just decreasing the number of useful feats people get at any given level. Which is fucked.

No, it's exactly the point, because it limits the combinatorial possibilities you have to consider both as a player and as a designer. Further, it gives at least a basic framework for considering relative power of feats for design, hopefully mitigating the problem that existed during 3.X: Designers creating PrCs in a bubble. That is, for the most part they didn't consider a character with levels in their PrC at the level they actually were. That was one of the stumbling blocks the Swiftblade ran into initially. Designers saw "full BAB" on a PrC and thought "full BAB character", nevermind the fact that the class required 3rd level spells to enter.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:09 am

So your core 11ish classes are 'realizm' tier go up to level 5, then you can enter higher tier 6-10 classes, and so on. The tricky part is deciding how higher tier classes

Feats... as a 'list of broad powers anyone can choose from', that should be more a part of the skill system than anything else. Like taking the Tome of Prowess and incorporating it into the basic skill system:
http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowes ... ourcebook)

So creating a character would look something like...

1) Pick your class, and from that class choose the class abilities that suit your character, like two weapon fighting or being a juggernaut if you're a warrior and ice or fire magic if you're a wizard.

2) Pick your skills, these also grant you abilities to use in and out of combat that scale with level. I prefer skill proficiency to fiddly skillpoint ranks.

3) Borrowing from the discussion in http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=255471#255471 the "thing that's like a feat but we'll call them a differnet name, like 'virtues'" grant character defining templates like being a vampire or werewolf and as a stand in for multiclassing.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:17 am

I have to agree with Frank Circa 2015, I'd rather have like 20 feats that were all way more minor than 7 powerful ones.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:27 am

I might even prefer if there were two tiers of feats that are independent of class/race. Break it up a bit so that you have a few big meaningful selections and then smaller bits that come more frequently.

• 2-3 powerful character altering options/templates that are spread over your career (say levels 1, 7, 14). Say if you get afflicted with Lycanthropy, Vampirism, or Borg nanites you could buy it off with one of these and make it an advantage rather than a disease.

• and an assortment of minor edges you get more frequently than the biggies (levels, 1, 4, 9, 13, 17).
Power level on par with getting mini-spheres with 3-4 spell-like abilities on a cohort progression.
-i.e. grant themed SLA at level 1, 6, 11, 16, (cantrip, level 1-2 spell, level 3-4 spell, level 5-6 spell) They don't have to be SLAs, but something on par with a SLA for that level.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:29 am

Players seem to like picking a thing off a list every time they level up. So if there's a "feat" every level that's some small bonus they'd probably like that more.

But they also don't want to pick from too many things right away, so if you make most feats come in groups, say in 5 level tiers, then that'd be nice.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:34 am

Kaelik wrote:I have to agree with Frank Circa 2015, I'd rather have like 20 feats that were all way more minor than 7 powerful ones.

What are 20 effects you'd consider at just the right power level to be feats?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:58 am

OgreBattle wrote:
Kaelik wrote:I have to agree with Frank Circa 2015, I'd rather have like 20 feats that were all way more minor than 7 powerful ones.
What are 20 effects you'd consider at just the right power level to be feats?

Tomb Tainted Soul
Educated
Divine Disciple
Landlord
Zen Archery
Perfect Two Weapon Fighting
Armored Mage
Aura of Courage
Ghost Hunter
Mounted Archery, Mounted Combat, and Rapid Shot
Whirlwind Attack
Craft Construct
Apprentice
Craft Wondrous Item
Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, and Rapid Reload
Energy Immunity
Wings of Evil
Mounted Combat, Ride-By-Attack, Trample, and Spirited Charge
Flyby Attack
Natural Spell

-Username17

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:18 pm

I tossed prereqs for feats and prestige classes a while back. A little caulk for the occasional crack and things held up well. I also let people start the game as most prestige classes (barring very few on a case by case basis)

People play what they want from day 1, and dont feel like they are biding time until they are actually what they want to be. Its been very popular.

A system with that built right into the rules would be awesome, and ive been slowly working my heartbreaker that direction as i work on it.

For feats, id almost say tossing them is fine. People like the concept of them but to me it seems more hassle than its worth. Especially if you give each class a few features like rangers combat style.

MfA · Post by **MfA** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:26 am

I think 4e got it right with paragon paths and epic destinies.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:51 am

Conceptually, you mean, MfA? I doubt 4e got anything right mechanically...

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:01 am

Prak wrote:Conceptually, you mean, MfA? I doubt 4e got anything right mechanically...

AC/Fort/Will/Ref using the same mechanic is convenient, as are skill proficiencies instead of assigning it by points where not maxing it out makes you beneath level expectancy.

I like the base skeleton of 4e's system, but the meat they layered on top of that was wonky.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:00 am

The thing where taking a Paragon Class is mandatory at a specific level is good. But there are a lot of things about the 4e Paragon Class paradigm that are complete shit.

The first is just that a lot of the Paragon Classes simply aren't high level concepts. If you're going to have shit like "pit fighter" and "dagger master" in there as Paragons, you might as well not fucking bother. Guy who fights in pits and guy who is good with daggers could be first level concepts, so putting them in at the prestige tier is just lame beyond belief.

The second issue is that the Paragon Classes have explicit class prerequisites. There are classes you can jump into from Fighter and classes you can jump in from Ranger, and never the two shall meet. And that's just an atrocious use of word count. A game like 4e needs a classplosion to function (way more of one than it ever got) and it needs a large number of Paragon options for each class to give players any meaningful choice. The 4e PHB actually spent a lot of pages (24) on Paragon Classes, more than 7 of the chapters. And for all that, you still only have four choices of Paragon to go from if, for example, you are a Ranger (or whatever).

And finally, the fact that once you jump into a Paragon class, you're still on the class rails you started on, that's completely fucked. It means that none of the Paragon Classes could ever provide real transformative advancement.

So the 4e Paragon Classes were a doomed design paradigm. But if I was making a new edition of D&D, I'd definitely have all the core classes have an end point with a mandatory Paragon Class selection at that time.

-Username17

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:34 pm

Grek wrote:If you make any feat level specific, that means that all the feats have to be level specific in order for that to be balanced. And if you make all of your feats level specific, what you're really doing is just decreasing the number of useful feats people get at any given level. Which is fucked.

The first part isn't completely true, there's totally spells that have a lot of levels you can take them and are still somewhat balanced, like Summon Monster, or Cure Wounds, or Charm foo. If the damage wasn't capped, the generic damage function that scales area of effect and damage type by level used would also be somewhat balanced.

But the second part is critically the opposite of true. 3.0 has thousands of feats, anything at all which reduces your options there is a huge benefit to everyone at all times, and totally increases the number of feats which would be considered "useful". In the same way that you can generally find a use for your 2nd level spell slots even at quite high level., and in AD&D could even use 1st level slots.

Copy from other thread.

On Prestigue Classes.

The first problem is PCs should enter at 4th level. Like, weapon specialisation, and all that other +4 BAB bullshit, or if you're going to be a Necromancer or a Summoner. So that you can play some levels of it before your game dies, without having to start the game at 7th level.

They should also start again at 10th, in case you forgot to become a full caster earlier and want to keep playing. Base classes have capstones with castles and towers and shit at 9th. The game can just finish at 15th level.

The second problem is +1 casterlevel. They wanted to just give you 4th to 9th level spells, they should have just given you 4th to 9th level spells. Enter as a Wizard for low level Wizard stuff, enter as a Rogue for backstabbing, enter as a Fighter for some more feats.

So your 4th level "Expert" stuff gives 3rd level spell equivalents at 3+2 = 5th character level. Your 10th level "Companion" stuff gives 6th level spell equivalents at 9+2 = 11th character level.

No one gets reduced spell level, they just get less slots. Even some 0's. Even Bards and shit should just have 9th level spells, any Wizard or Cleric who wants fucking BAB or hit points or shit like that has it already, it's nothing.

That thing where Paladins and Rangers grab some spells, either at 3e-style mid levels, or AD&D-style high levels, you can do that or you can dodge it.

--

Which is really just avoiding the thing where you switch between even Fighter levels and odd Rogue levels, or odd Rogue and even Sorcerer, or odd Cleric and even Sorcerer. Though that would probably make a decent solution to almost all D&D 3's problems with multiclassing, except that everyone would do that. Gestalt, except you lose half your base slots, and you can just grab what you need when you need it.

--

On Feats.

Feats are just ass, 3e, 4e, 5e, garbage. At the very least they should be tiered, like there should be 7 levels of Feats (because most classes get 7 of them, so there's 7 real choices, and it's like a 3/4 caster), and they should be at least as good as the less good spells at that level, or the better spells slightly lower. Mostly all day, all the time, like a Warlock. Flavoured to suit, so you can disintegrate by touch as a standard action with any adamant weapon, fly by jump DC 15 if wearing a cloak and all hands are empty, poly the morph of any monster you have recently killed for the next ten minutes, or heal when eating a meal (max 3/day). Stuff you'd care about having to choose.

And your Fighter-type Prestigue classes are balanced against the damn spellcasters by giving them mini-feats that are a bit crap for the full measure.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:11 pm

tussock wrote:The first part isn't completely true, there's totally spells that have a lot of levels you can take them and are still somewhat balanced, like Summon Monster, or Cure Wounds, or Charm foo. If the damage wasn't capped, the generic damage function that scales area of effect and damage type by level used would also be somewhat balanced.

There is a Summon Monster version available at every level of the game and all of them are supposed to be reasonable for someone to cast at the level they appear. Likewise for Cure Foo Wounds and the character concept of "Use Charm Spells". I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the idea that it is somehow balanced for a third level character who already knows Summon Monster I to be presented with a choice between learning Summon Monster II and Cure Light Wounds. That is bullshit. The choice needs to always be between Summon Monster I and Cure Light Wounds, OR between Summon Monster II and Cure Moderate Wounds. It can't be balanced otherwise.

But the second part is critically the opposite of true. 3.0 has thousands of feats, anything at all which reduces your options there is a huge benefit to everyone at all times, and totally increases the number of feats which would be considered "useful". In the same way that you can generally find a use for your 2nd level spell slots even at quite high level., and in AD&D could even use 1st level slots.

The argument you are making here is fucking stupid on multiple levels. Let me break it down for the audience:

When Grek said "Making all feats be level specific lowers the number of useful feats available at a given level", that was the opposite of true.
There are way too many feats printed in 3rd edition. Like, thousands of them.
By lowering the number of feats that are useful at a given level, having level specific feats makes it so that the majority of feats do not need to be considered at level up.
Decreasing the number of feats under consideration increases the number feats you will consider to be useful. Somehow. Or maybe, if we're charitable, tussock meant "proportion of feat" instead. Despite absolute number being more important than proportion here.
That's a good thing.
Therefore what Grek said is false despite it needing to be true for this argument to work.
Warglebhlargle AD&D 1st level spells! High Level Casters with Cure Moderate Wounds! Read my other stupid post!

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:06 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:The thing where taking a Paragon Class is mandatory at a specific level is good. But there are a lot of things about the 4e Paragon Class paradigm that are complete shit....

So the 4e Paragon Classes were a doomed design paradigm. But if I was making a new edition of D&D, I'd definitely have all the core classes have an end point with a mandatory Paragon Class selection at that time.

-Username17

You've mentioned how you'd do paragon paths in an older post:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=85705

FrankTrollman wrote:
Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies aren't very interesting. But then, the game isn't that interesting. But people play it anyway.

The real problem with Paragon Paths is that they embrace the Dual Attribute Dependency that mars all of 4e pretty hard. Razor Clerics would kind of like to be Battle Priests, except that if they were suckers and tried to make a Strength/Charisma cleric like they were told they could, they can't be one. Because all the Paragon Paths for Razor Clerics are Strength/Wisdom. That shit has to stop. Also, the strong association between Paragon Paths and Classes needs to stop too. A PP is already restricted by attribute, and by available weaponry. It does not need any other limitations. A Bow Ranger has a high Dex, but he's not going to take Dagger Master because he uses a frickin bow. A Duelist Rogue has a high Charisma, but he isn't going to take Dark Reckoner because he doesn't have an implement.

Seriously, every PP should be open to every class. That would allow a lot of the redundant bullshit to just disappear. Kensei and Astral Blade just don't need to be different PPs.

You have any new thoughts to add to that? There was also a previous discussion on whether paragon classes should enhance base class abilities or just offer a new set of level appropriate powers to basically replace them. How would you design a paragon path that an arcane caster, sneaky rogue, and armored knight could all enter without feeling gimped? Would these 3 characters now play the same because they're now the same paragon class, or would their initial base class levels still be a big part of their identity and mechanics?