Do you add feats to your game?

[lumin]

I'm curious to know how many house rule feats into their games. Feats are probably the number one reason why I quite D&D 3E.

First, (along with skills) it made character creation and level gain extremely tedious and was a pain for a DM to remember what players had.

Second, feats always just seemed stupid to me. For example, why do I need a feat to tell me I can fight with two weapons? In real life, I can pick up and swing two weapons around, with or without training.

For those feats that increase your "effectiveness" at doing something, that's why we have Primes. Also, if a player REALLY wants to say he's better at doing something in particular, then I don't see a problem in that player role-playing a situation in which he learns how do "it" better at char creation or level-up (the GM deciding by how much better they are).

Finally, Feats (and skills) just seem to pigeon-hole players into a specific set of "allowed" abilities. What if a player wanted to be particularly good at climbing? Sorry, there's no such thing as "Improved Climb". What about "apple-pie making"?

What's silly is that, the D&D rules tell us that a GM can allow players to do whatever it is they want, in the name of "fun". So why even bother giving us a long list of feats in the first place if, in the end, we're allowed to throw them out the window or add new ones anyway?
_________________
Faery Tale Online
Tell your story, Leave your legacy

World's first MMORPG with true family systems

Player-created villages, dungeons and items

Dynamic weather, monsters and events

[gideon_thorne]

I moved this to a more relevant forum. In Keeper's Advice, only moderator level folks and above can reply to the topics.

But to answer the question, no I don't use feat's per say. If someone wants to try a given action, I just make em roll for it, or assign a penalty.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Go0gleplex]

Feats met da feets when we booted 'em in our game
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Go0gleplex wrote:
Feats met da feets when we booted 'em in our game

they went down in de feat?

Sorry.. couldn't resist.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[bighara]

I use a basic feat system in my game for the simple reason that my players enjoy having them. Some players really like the crunchy bits, and a tangible reward like taking a feat that gives them a bonus is a kick for them. My feat list doesn't really add much in terms of new abilities, or restrict actions. Mostly it either allows a player to improve (slightly) in a given area (usually something their class already could do), or grants a mechanical advantage (like Improved Initiative).

If it didn't add to our fun, I wouldn't do it. But YMMV.

[Omote]

I also use a basic feat system in my C&C games. They are not unlike feats in 3E, but they are definitely not 3E feats. The reason for doing so was quite simply that my players demanded a bit more mechanical diversity in their characters. While feats are not really needed for the C&C game, by adding them you do add a certain amount of mechanical "crunch" to the game that many players now like in their characters now days.

Like the BIG-H above, in creating this basic feat system for my games, I made a particularly conscience effort not to bog the game down in feat selections, and not dynamically change how the C&C game works. In fact, most of the feats that I use in the game are tied into the skill system I use, or simply modify how existing rules already work in the C&C game.

Like If you are interested in seeing how I do it, click here:
http://omote076.googlepages.com/c&crulesexpansions

or see my sig below.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[boxcornersdiety]

I don't use feats in my game, because I don't want to codify what a character can or can't do based on thier choices upon leveling up. The thought of players asking me to "respec" their characters makes me want to go home and cry...

I particularly hate Cleave. The idea that you can get an extra attack by killing a mouse or insect is ridiculous.

[bighara]

boxcornersdiety wrote:
I particularly hate Cleave. The idea that you can get an extra attack by killing a mouse or insect is ridiculous.

There's no reason a GM can't tell a player "That won't work. Think of something else." A reality check is totally within the GM's purview.

My Cleave feat is only for Fighters and works like this: "If a hit downs a foe, and there is another foe adjacent to him, you may make a 2nd attack roll at 2 to attempt to hit the 2nd target. Only one additional target may be hit using this feat."

[Treebore]

What bighara said, plus here is a summary of how I allow my players to do things, often similar to feats, with no long lists, just a general mechanic with which to allow attempts to do such things, and to eventually earn them.

Wizards:

SIEGE checks can be used to alter spells being cast. A SIEGE check can be made to change the energy type of a spell. For example, to change a fireball to a electric ball, ice ball, etc... you make a TN 12 check + your level to beat a CL = to the level of the spell. So to change the fireball to ice would be a CL 3, so beat TN 15.

Similar checks can be done to maximize damage, CL spell level +3

To double range, CL spell level +3

To increase number of targets effected, CL spell level +3 per additional target (example spell, Charm Person to effect two people instead of one)

Failure, in all cases, loses you the spell. Roll a natural 1 and pray for survival if it causes damage.

SIEGE Checks:

As you probably guessed, I allow SIEGE checks to be used for a lot of things other than skills. They can be used by fighters to try and get extra attacks, to get an extra attack when you take an opponent down, to transfer points from your BtH to your damage roll, if you think of it, ask me if you can do it. If you have played 3E many of their feats are good ideas for SIEGE checks.

IMPORTANT: If you successfully use a SIEGE check frequently enough to perform a specific kind of action I will eventually, when I decide to do so, award it as a "signature move". This will mean that as long as your opponent is no more than 3 levels higher than you, or lower, you will not need to perform a SIEGE check to do the "signature move". You can have as many "signature moves" as I decide to award you with.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Omote]

bighara wrote:
There's no reason a GM can't tell a player "That won't work. Think of something else." A reality check is totally within the GM's purview.

Absolutely. One of the things that the 3E game did was put a certain amount of perceived power in the hands of the players. When asking why they can't get another Cleve attack because they just killed a mouse, such a player usually says something like "well, it's in the rules." The DM/GM/CK should have, and understand the fact that such rulings are possible as the game master, and should be expected. This is one of the reasons that the C&C game works so well. Just enough rules spelled out for the CK to adjudicate as needed.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[csperkins1970]

Nope. I don't use them.

At the same time all characters may use (for free) the equivalent of Weapon Finesse when using "light" weapons.

All characters with with DEX as a prime offset their TWF penalties by 2. I start with -6/-6, so a character with DEX as a prime has TWF fighting penalties of -4/-4. If at least one weapon is a light weapon, the penalties are reduced to -2/-2.

[danbuter]

I do not use feats in my game. I like having regular class abilities. I have changed some of the class abilities from those in the book, though, as I think a number of them are completely useless (like Combat Dominance).
_________________
-------

Dan
http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter/candc.html - my Castles and Crusades webpage

[lumin]

csperkins1970 wrote:
Nope. I don't use them.

At the same time all characters may use (for free) the equivalent of Weapon Finesse when using "light" weapons.

All characters with with DEX as a prime offset their TWF penalties by 2. I start with -6/-6, so a character with DEX as a prime has TWF fighting penalties of -4/-4. If at least one weapon is a light weapon, the penalties are reduced to -2/-2.

Weapon Finesse is one I have actually considered using. I actually think this is a rule that should just be part of the game in the first place, as a note under the melee combat section.

It just makes sense that finesse characters, should be able to use dex instead of str for melee.
_________________
Faery Tale Online
Tell your story, Leave your legacy

World's first MMORPG with true family systems

Player-created villages, dungeons and items

Dynamic weather, monsters and events

[lumin]

double post
_________________
Faery Tale Online
Tell your story, Leave your legacy

World's first MMORPG with true family systems

Player-created villages, dungeons and items

Dynamic weather, monsters and events

[Buttmonkey]

I don't use feats or skills in my game. Too much crunch. I had endless fun playing 1E without them and I don't need them now.

[anonymous]

No feats!

[Jackal]

I pretty much do what Treebore described. Based on a character's background, class, race, experiences, etc I allow the player to make siege checks to at least try and pull off anything the character might have some chance at doing.

I do use a simple skill system and play by the book when it comes to class checks vs non class checks, etc. But for things a character wants to do outside class skills or background skills I just let them take a shot if it seems reasonable.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

[Julian Grimm]

Not really. Some feats like Cleave and power attack have been reworked into combat options all PC's can use. Others are out like the ones that gave +1 or +2 to certain skills. But there are some like MetaMagic feats that I have been wanting to port over.

Treebore and Omote have the best options thus far for including them in the game.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[Wulfgarn]

I have been toying with an oidea for a while now to aide in this situation for I am wowfully unsatisfied with the way C&C sits off the shelf.

I do not ewant to over complecate things and I do not want to create scabs of work for myself but.....

I do like differences between characters --- C&C lacks that from one fighter to another ....

Anyway..... I got to thinking about using the concept of Heroic Paths from the Midnight Campaign setting.

Nt there specific Heroic paths but paths that shape the character class by adding a new ability to the class at each level gained.

this would be a great way to incorporate the concept of Prestige classsess and Feats in the game without breaking it.

[Wulfgarn]

I have been toying with an oidea for a while now to aide in this situation for I am wowfully unsatisfied with the way C&C sits off the shelf.

I do not ewant to over complecate things and I do not want to create scabs of work for myself but.....

I do like differences between characters --- C&C lacks that from one fighter to another ....

Anyway..... I got to thinking about using the concept of Heroic Paths from the Midnight Campaign setting.

Nt there specific Heroic paths but paths that shape the character class by adding a new ability to the class at each level gained.

this would be a great way to incorporate the concept of Prestige classsess and Feats in the game without breaking it.

[Lord Dynel]

I, like a few others, don't use the established subsystem for feats, but I allow for extra actions - with the caveat of failing a check means failing the action being attempted.

For example:

A character is trying to fire two arrows from his bow (ala the Manyshot feat from 3.x)? Make a check (a dex check with perhaps a CL of the level of the target plus his Dex bonus) and if successful, the attack roll can then be made. Failure means the character loses his attack for that round.

I like this methodolgy for working feat-like actions into C&C as I'm of the opinion that a feat system, while giving the illusion of defining characters, actually limits their options instead.

[Omote]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I, like a few others, don't use the established subsystem for feats, but I allow for extra actions - with the caveat of failing a check means failing the action being attempted.

For example:

A character is trying to fire two arrows from his bow (ala the Manyshot feat from 3.x)? Make a check (a dex check with perhaps a CL of the level of the target plus his Dex bonus) and if successful, the attack roll can then be made. Failure means the character loses his attack for that round.

I like this methodolgy for working feat-like actions into C&C as I'm of the opinion that a feat system, while giving the illusion of defining characters, actually limits their options instead.

While certainly this aspect of the Siege System shows its immense flexibility, I have run into numerous problems with open-ended "feat-like" actions. One, it's too arbitrary in my opinion. Players from the 3E version of the game come into C&C with a boatload of 3E books to pick and choose what feats will be used at what time. This may work for some, but in estimation becomes an overwhelming aspect to continually adjudicate. When a player does this in one instance, the same player may try to do again in a later instance with different results depending on the situation. As a CK, I do not have time or the inclination to referee differing results from basically the same action. With a codified set of feats, this brings the players a measure of mechanical difference (even if it is only illusionary, which I actually agree with 100%), and cuts down on the possibility of different or arbitrary rulings.

The second reason that I have decided to do away with feat-like actions is dice rolling. I have found that making a Siege check for all these different situations to become ridiculous. Players started to do unique feat-like actions nearly every round (particularly in combat), with often wildly and inventive ways to get around... everything! This became a problem and was way too powerful with the group that I game with. Plus, it's actually distracting and time-consuming from the actual game session with players coming up with ever more unique ways to use feat-like actions.

As always, YMMV. I tend to run games with groups of 7-10 people, who tend to use rules to their advantage more often than not.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

As I have mentioned in the past, I have a system wherein I award an amount of experience points which are used solely for the purposes of adding to a character -- these must be spent in training, and can only be used for these purposes, and remain very small so anything expensive requires multiple levels to obtain. It is not a "feat" per se, but an actual permanent addition to the character, class be damned.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Lord Dynel]

Omote wrote:
While certainly this aspect of the Siege System shows its immense flexibility, I have run into numerous problems with open-ended "feat-like" actions. One, it's too arbitrary in my opinion. Players from the 3E version of the game come into C&C with a boatload of 3E books to pick and choose what feats will be used at what time. This may work for some, but in estimation becomes an overwhelming aspect to continually adjudicate. When a player does this in one instance, the same player may try to do again in a later instance with different results depending on the situation. As a CK, I do not have time or the inclination to referee differing results from basically the same action. With a codified set of feats, this brings the players a measure of mechanical difference (even if it is only illusionary, which I actually agree with 100%), and cuts down on the possibility of different or arbitrary rulings.

The second reason that I have decided to do away with feat-like actions is dice rolling. I have found that making a Siege check for all these different situations to become ridiculous. Players started to do unique feat-like actions nearly every round (particularly in combat), with often wildly and inventive ways to get around... everything! This became a problem and was way too powerful with the group that I game with. Plus, it's actually distracting and time-consuming from the actual game session with players coming up with ever more unique ways to use feat-like actions.

As always, YMMV. I tend to run games with groups of 7-10 people, who tend to use rules to their advantage more often than not.

-O

I can actually envision this and I agree that it would be a giant PITA. I guess I can fortunately say that I have not run into problems like this, but I see how they could arise. In my game, I think it's the fear of constant failure that would result from trying something "weird" every round and the consequence of failure - not being able to do anything for that round - that (possibly?) keeps them in check. But if my players came to the table with stacks of 3.5 books, rubbing their hands together with the evil thought of, "What feats am I going to pull off today?" then yeah, I would be a little worried. Actually, I'd be a lot worried because it would be an indicator that the players are trying to take advantage of my generosity - something I'm already paranoid about.
But as you said, hoss, YMMV. I think the idea of feats is a nifty one, but I'd rather not have to quantify a PC's special moves/abilities. I'd rather them be able to try something new without the regret of, "Damn! I didn't take that feat!" The only side effect is exactly what you state - bogging down the game with too many rolls and players possibly taking advantage of the situation.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.