Sell me (or don't) on including 3.5 Feats in my C&C game

[Ogrepuppy]

Hiya. I'm brand-spanking new to C&C and the SIEGE engine. Have been playing 3.5 for a few years, and played a number of years of AD&D 2nd Ed. and a fair amount of Call of Cthulhu.

Still waiting for my C&C books to arrive, but in the meantime, I'll start casting my line out for opinions.

I've got a player who seems to think that Feats will be helpful in our C&C game.

What's your opinion? If you did--or did not--include them in your game, why? Is there an advantage--or disadvantage--to having Feats?

[rabindranath72]

Given how the SIEGE system works, not many advantages. But if you have got players who are used to the system, you might introduce them, and then remove them when they feel they do not actually need them.

I did not feel the need to use them (well, we played were few 3.x games anyway).

I guess some people here (Treebore comes to mind) have been using/are using feats in C&C. They might give some good advice.

[Rigon]

I believe Omote has a list of feats that he uses in his game. Treebore uses what he likes to call "feat-like actions," but he can better explain how those work.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[Nelzie]

"Feats" are already available to everyone within C&C. Just make appropriate SIEGE Engine checks and add character levels, IF applicable.

Obviously a Wizard shouldn't get to add his/her level to attempting a Power Attack with his/her staff. Yet, the same wizard could add his/her level to attempt to "Maximize" a spell.

Set the TN, have the player roll a d20 + level + Attribute Mod and BAM! You have an endless list of reasonable feats. I wouldn't allow bizarre quasi-supernatural Feats that really fit better as class abilities into the game. For those, I would craft a new class with its own XP Chart.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Omote]

Personally, I like the idea of feats as a mechanical way to distinguish one character from another. However, I can live without them in the C&C game. I think the idea was taken to an extreme in the v3.5 game with feats. The dizzying array of feat options makes for too much headache IMO, and creates a sense of "mechanical advantage" from a players point of view. Players who like feats tend to think that they are needed in the game to play a certain character, when in actuality they are not.

Like Treebore has stated, most feats can be sumed up with but a single SEIGE roll. This is usually uncomplicated, and very straight forward. However, my players wanted a little bit more "meat" to their games. So I included feats, but not *exactly* like they work in v3.5, but very close.
hope none of my players read this - but if they do, who cares *shrugs*

They way I designed feats for my C&C games gives the impression that they are just like the v3.5 game, but in actuallity I melded a few different mechanics into my "feat" system. Included with feats are attribute increases and cleric domains (both of which I like from v3.5). But feats, like everything else are tied to level not class. That means that every character gets a feat based on their level, not by some less then accurate aspect of attempting to balance out classes. Feats in my game, for the most part, are general and can be selected by any class.

This gives the players the satisfaction of having their mechanical "meat" and the sense that their characters are truely different from one another.

Honestly, feats arn't needed in the C&C game whatsoever.

........................................Omote

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

[gideon_thorne]

Ogrepuppy wrote:
What's your opinion? If you did--or did not--include them in your game, why? Is there an advantage--or disadvantage--to having Feats?

They are totally unneccessary. If someone wants to attempt a feat like action, simply assign a penalty to a seige check that is equal to the bonus the ability gives.

Short and to the point. This is already build into the game via the suggested roll modifiers in the PHB. THat lis is by no means exhaustive.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

gideon_thorne wrote:
If someone wants to attempt a feat like action, simply assign a penalty to a seige check that is equal to the bonus the ability gives.

I generally agree with this, however in the past few years FEATS in the v3.5 game have grown into more then just your standard "power attack" kind of thing. Feats now are whole intefrated and connected to every aspect of the game including special abilities, magic item creation, weapon fighting styles, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and so forth. Feats in the v3.5 game now do a whole lot more then just the stuff in the v3.5 PHB.

Obviously, discretion is needed as every feat in v3.5 can't simply be made doing a SEIGE check. IMHO, it's better to rid yourself of those kind of feats altoghter. If not, just play v3.5. *shrugs*

.......................................Omote

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

[gideon_thorne]

Omote wrote:
Obviously, discretion is needed as every feat in v3.5 can't simply be made doing a SEIGE check. IMHO, it's better to rid yourself of those kind of feats altoghter. If not, just play v3.5. *shurgs*

.......................................Omote

FPQ

Which is why I suggested a simple solution. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

'Tis simple... and better.
..............................................Omote

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

[serleran]

Feats are an illusion. Discard them like overused condoms.

[Nelzie]

serleran wrote:
Feats are an illusion. Discard them like overused condoms.

Damnit!

I am trying to eat my lunch here!
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Dagger]

serleran wrote:
Feats are an illusion. Discard them like overused condoms.

I completely agree that Feats are not the way to go, and love the SIEGE engine way of adjudicating things. That said... what do you mean when you say Feats are an illusion?

[Philotomy Jurament]

dagger4192 wrote:
I completely agree that Feats are not the way to go, and love the SIEGE engine way of adjudicating things. That said... what do you mean when you say Feats are an illusion?

I agree that they're an illusion: the illusion of options. Actually, what feats do is *constrain* you. Every feat you don't have listed on your sheet is something you can't do. Under a system with feats, if you want to do something that is covered by a feat you don't have (and the more feats there are, the worse that problem is), the DM has to tell you "No," or he can tell you "Yes, but..." and figure out how to cripple your attempt so that it doesn't make the feat worthless (e.g. Yes, but you suffer such-and-such penalty and draw and attack of opportunity --- "What? Forget it then, why bother, I just roll to attack...")

If you go with the SIEGE engine, you have *more* options, because you can attempt anything you like. The DM sets a difficulty, and you roll to see if you can pull it off.

You can use feats as a guideline or example of things PCs could try, and how you might handle them mechanically. But my advice is to NOT implement feats as a separate mechanical subsystem. The SIEGE engine will give you all the benefits of feats without the attendant record-keeping and rule-lookups.

[rabindranath72]

I miss the link between the illusion and the used condoms however

[Nelzie]

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
I agree that they're an illusion: the illusion of options. Actually, what feats do is *constrain* you. Every feat you don't have listed on your sheet is something you can't do. Under a system with feats, if you want to do something that is covered by a feat you don't have (and the more feats there are, the worse that problem is), the DM has to tell you "No," or he can tell you "Yes, but..." and figure out how to cripple your attempt so that it doesn't make the feat worthless (e.g. Yes, but you suffer such-and-such penalty and draw and attack of opportunity --- "What? Forget it then, why bother, I just roll to attack...")

If you go with the SIEGE engine, you have *more* options, because you can attempt anything you like. The DM sets a difficulty, and you roll to see if you can pull it off.

You can use feats as a guideline or example of things PCs could try, and how you might handle them mechanically. But my advice is to NOT implement feats as a separate mechanical subsystem. The SIEGE engine will give you all the benefits of feats without the attendant record-keeping and rule-lookups.

That's an excellent summation. The other thing is that in the design of the feat system, it has come to light that "All Feats are equal, but some Feats are More Equal than others." This was a specific design goal, as described by one of the lead developers.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Lurker]

PJ You said it perfectly!

Quote:
serleran wrote:

Feats are an illusion. Discard them like overused condoms.

Damnit!

I am trying to eat my lunch here!

Oh I just finished my soup..... Now I don't feel well
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

[Breakdaddy]

serleran wrote:
Feats are an illusion. Discard them like overused condoms.

"OVER"used condoms?! How many times, exactly, do you use one before you consider it OVER-used, chieftain??

[serleran]

Some information is supposed to remain undisclosed. But, in general, once is more than enough.

As to the link... well, you're probably safe not "getting" it.

[gideon_thorne]

dagger4192 wrote:
I completely agree that Feats are not the way to go, and love the SIEGE engine way of adjudicating things. That said... what do you mean when you say Feats are an illusion?

They are an unneccessary mechanism for what can be done in C&C perfectly well in abstract.

Why have a codified feat that serves no purpose but to replace the imagination?

A player ought to truly learn, by experience, via a cooperative game master, what can be done with their character.

Mechanistic constructs just get in the way.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

Sorry if someone else says this. ITs kind of hard to see, but the SIEGE engine has "feats" built into it.

Its nothing assigned like in 3E, nor is it guaranteed to succeed. With the SIEGE system any character can attempt any kind of actions, including what is covered by feats in 3E.

The only trick is for the CK to allow them, and decide how to adjudicate the CL to be added to the TN of 12 or 18.

[Dagger]

I appreciate the feedback on the "feats are illusions" concept. I totally see what you all mean. It's a style of play for people who are used to playing video games with characters that have no personality. Everything you can do are things you gain as a get more powerful. Treebore is also right that as far as a d20 player is concerned, feat-style abilities are something built right into the SIEGE system. You have to add imagination... it's not something given to you on a table or something.

[Ogrepuppy]

dagger4192 wrote:
You have to add imagination... it's not something given to you on a table or something.

That, sadly, is likely to be a negative feature of the SIEGE engine for at least one of my players. I'm not going to be a jerk and say he has no imagination, but I think he likes having a "framework" wherein to make decisions.

Some people can't handle the scope of being able to do--literally--anything, and for some it even has a crippling effect. There's a safety net, or there can be, in having clearly defined, "you-can-do-this-you-can't-do-that" options. I, personally, would prefer a middle ground.

[Emryys]

you should take a look at Iron Heros...

It has some interesting things like Combat challenges and stunts which are quite intuitive and would mesh well with the seige engine...
_________________

[rabindranath72]

Ogrepuppy wrote:
That, sadly, is likely to be a negative feature of the SIEGE engine for at least one of my players. I'm not going to be a jerk and say he has no imagination, but I think he likes having a "framework" wherein to make decisions.

Some people can't handle the scope of being able to do--literally--anything, and for some it even has a crippling effect. There's a safety net, or there can be, in having clearly defined, "you-can-do-this-you-can't-do-that" options. I, personally, would prefer a middle ground.

Actually, the CK should be the safety net. Players are not allowed to do anything in C&C, only what the CK decides. And when he decides so, he can call for a check. Perhaps players do not even have to be informed about this fact. Simply tell them that "you have the rules to decide". I have not had any problems even with d20 hardcore players once things are "explained" this way.

[Nifelhein]

Emryys wrote:
you should take a look at Iron Heros...

It has some interesting things like Combat challenges and stunts which are quite intuitive and would mesh well with the seige engine...

Iron Heroes is also pretty cheap on drivethrurpg right now, the core book is at 5 (down from 40) and the Gm book is 9 (down from 20), so the time is right to get it. Follows links to each:
Iron Heroes PHB
Mastering Iron Heroes
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Turanil]

Nowadays "feats" have become an heresy on most C&C boards. You will be taught ad nauseum how the SIEGE engine is the only rule that replaces them all, and how it shouldn't be discussed (for instance, if I suggest for a few examples of CL for typical tasks, it's an heresy, and I will be promptly told that there is no need to, and that the CK should adjudicate them on the fly, where guidelines are hindrances to others' games, despite they don't need to look through them).

So, going back to "feats", yes they can be included into C&C. I would say not all of them, particularly discard the combat maneuvers and AoO feats. On the other hand, such feats as Toughness or Weapon Finesse should fit very well.

[Nelzie]

Ogrepuppy wrote:
That, sadly, is likely to be a negative feature of the SIEGE engine for at least one of my players. I'm not going to be a jerk and say he has no imagination, but I think he likes having a "framework" wherein to make decisions.

Some people can't handle the scope of being able to do--literally--anything, and for some it even has a crippling effect. There's a safety net, or there can be, in having clearly defined, "you-can-do-this-you-can't-do-that" options. I, personally, would prefer a middle ground.

That's easy to handle.

Make a short list. Give it to the player, the list can be a simple explaination of the SIEGE Engine and include a couple of sample moves. Here's a few sample moves for a "Fighter Type" to get you started...
Trip - Causes the target to be knocked prone for the remainder of and the entirety of the next combat round. (d20 + Fighter Level + STR or DEX Mod must be higher than Base Challenge (12 or 18) + the Target's Hit Dice.) Success of SIEGE Check requires successful to-hit to complete, failure means the action fails and no futher attack can be made that round. It's DEX if the character is trying to deftly trip an opponet near his/her size or smaller. It's STR if the target is larger than the PC or the player said the attack is just a forceful way of knocking the opponent down.
Power Attack - Attacker loses 2 points on to-hit and add +3 to damage. (d20 + Fighter Level + STR or DEX Mod must be higher than Base Challenge (12 or 18) + 3.) Success of SIEGE Check requires successful to-hit to complete, failure means the attacker is -2 to hit and adds no bonus to Damage. The +4 represents the extra Damage. "Advanced Power Attack" is run the same way, but has a Challenge Level of +6 to represent the damage bonus being sought.

Provide a short list, similar to the above and explain to your player that additional things can be worked out, if he/she wants to try a move not listed above.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Nelzie]

Turanil wrote:
Nowadays "feats" have become an heresy on most C&C boards. You will be taught ad nauseum how the SIEGE engine is the only rule that replaces them all, and how it shouldn't be discussed (for instance, if I suggest for a few examples of CL for typical tasks, it's an heresy, and I will be promptly told that there is no need to, and that the CK should adjudicate them on the fly, where guidelines are hindrances to others' games, despite they don't need to look through them).

So, going back to "feats", yes they can be included into C&C. I would say not all of them, particularly discard the combat maneuvers and AoO feats. On the other hand, such feats as Toughness or Weapon Finesse should fit very well.

Who are you?

I don't see anyone here claiming feats are heresy. It's true, they aren't needed, it's true that the SIEGE Engine can handle the effects of the majority of feats.

Are you, perhaps, affiliated with the $3 PDF you suggest people look at? Seriously, if people want/need to add Feats to their C&C game, why wouldn't they just go to the freely available d20 SRD and put together something that works for their campaign?

[Philotomy Jurament]

Turanil wrote:
Nowadays "feats" have become an heresy on most C&C boards. You will be taught ad nauseum how the SIEGE engine is the only rule that replaces them all, and how it shouldn't be discussed...

Heresy? Ad Nauseum? Shouldn't be discussed?

I don't know who you are, either, but I think you're #1) rude, and #2) wrong. I don't see anyone here making feats out to be heresy or saying they shouldn't be discussed. Even my post, which makes what I think is a strong case against using feats in C&C, says things like "my advice is.."; that's a long way from laying down some absolute "C&C orthodoxy" that defines what is and is not verboten.

Not only that, but the original poster *requested* arguments and opinions for and against. If most of the responses are against, that's just the way it goes. (And might be a good indication that there's something to the argument against...)

[gideon_thorne]

Turanil wrote:
Nowadays "feats" have become an heresy on most C&C boards. You will be taught ad nauseum how the SIEGE engine is the only rule that replaces them all, and how it shouldn't be discussed (for instance, if I suggest for a few examples of CL for typical tasks, it's an heresy, and I will be promptly told that there is no need to, and that the CK should adjudicate them on the fly, where guidelines are hindrances to others' games, despite they don't need to look through them).

*smiles* And I tell people to do the same thing if they want to simulate feat like actions all the time, and I don't get called a heretic.

I just get called a heretic for other reasons. ^_~`

Personally, as I have stated, I find the inclusion of hard and fast rules for feats unneccessary. But for those who want to include such in their games, assigning a challenge level to match the capability of said feat like action is quite a reasonable course of action.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley