House Rule Suggestions

[Nephallim]

I actually kind of like that idea. It will make it necessary for pretty much everyone to do their sheet by hand, however, rather than through the character builder.

I'd like to suggest an alternative: Let players pick up extra PHB2 backgrounds at those levels. Those can grant a class skill, skill bonus, or language. They're not necessarily as nice as some feats, but they can spice a character up a little without having a severe mechanical impact to balance or destroying the usefullness of the character builder.

What do you think?

[Trailfoot]

The Builder's house rule button will add feat slots. It won't add background slots.

Your idea kills Builder deader than Bladedancer's.

[Nephallim]

I'm pretty sure there are multiple background slots... about six of them.

Unless I saw something wrong, which is possible.

[Shiningwolf]

You jsut dont get the benefits for those extra backgrounds when u select them in the builder. And while extra feats would be nice, I dont really see the need for them

[Bladedancer]

George,

What Trail said. Extra feats are a lot easier to put in with the builder than extra Backgrounds are (those are currently impossible to get the mechanical benefits showing up on your sheet, actually, much to my annoyance).

Shiningwolf,

Basically, I think that having the extra feats helps you flesh out the character's (stat-reflected) ability to do interesting things that aren't necessarily critical to the build's combat effectiveness. At higher levels, there's plenty of feats to go around, but for the first few, you don't have a lot of room to do anything but spend that feat to get the extra damage or resistance you need to be effective, or the Multi-class that's crucial to your play concept. There's not space for more "oh, hey, it would be nice" feats, the way there is at later levels. I see that as a problem, so I suggested a solution.

[Shiningwolf]

I understand it, but the basic idea I always got from the lower levels was that these are fairly inexperienced heroes. One of the reasons you don't have that customization is at low levels you are trying to reflect that they do not have the plethora of experience to differentiate themselves from others of their class. Its one of the reasons why at the heroic tier you are actually gaining more attack powers, while at paragon and epic you are mostly replacing previously known powers, paragon paths withstanding. If we wanted to have a feeling of more differentiation we should just start out at higher levels.

[Bladedancer]

Shiningwolf -

In the old world of 2e and 3e when Wizards could die from falling on a dagger, I think I would be inclined to agree with you. However, 4e is very explicit about wanting its heroes to kick ass and take names from level 1 - look at the increase in hit points, healing surges, at-will powers. Given that, I think adjusting feats to that philosophy is much more sensible than leaving them the lone reflection of "inexperience" in otherwise very capable people.

[Nephallim]

If we do add extra feats, I think it is important that there be some sort of way to make sure players aren't abusing it. Maybe compile a list of kosher 'flavor' feats? It kinda seems like a lot of work to me.

[Bladedancer]

George,

Any particular thing you'd consider "abuse"? Personally, I don't see giving people extra design elbow-room as a particular problem - if they want to pile on a few more combat feats, the lack of stacking bonuses makes it pretty easy to ensure they won't break much, so what's the harm? Basically, we're all adults here and we don't have to deal with the constraints WotC has of designing for an infinite audience; whatever people want to spend their three extra feats on, let 'em.

Alternatively, if you were really bent on restricting it to 'flavor' feats, the easiest and crudest fix would be to restrict the feat slots to skill proficiencies, skill focus, Linguist and multi-class feats (which aren't precisely flavor, but multi-class can use a little boost now and then). Personally, I'd just as soon let people do as they please.

[Nephallim]

I suppose not really. My approach to houseruling when it comes to the interior mechanics of the game tends to be a little conservative. If its not broken, I'd rather not try to fix it. The addition of more feats at lower levels isn't quite messing with that, but its close enough to make me uncomfortable... but I agree that limiting it to skill training, skill focus, linguist, multi-class and (maybe) armor and weapon proficiencies might be a good idea.

[Shiningwolf]

Actually its because we no longer have that feeling of low levels characters dying so easily that I don't really see the need for this. And I also point out that the feats are not the only reflection of "inexperienced" heroes. A level 5 character has 2 at wills, encounters, and daily's and one utility. At 11th level increase the encounters to 4, daily to 3, ect. How is this not a reflection of almost novice heroes learning the ropes?
Saying that, I agree with Micheal's stance of not fixing whats not broken, though I do experiment with the rules a bit more, usually to the players detriment (for those who know what I am talking about Jim and Seraphine i apologize.) But again, I dont mind this rule, just don't see the need for it.

[Trailfoot]

I guess it's time for me to weigh in on this one.

As odd as it seems after the incredible impact (and scarcity) of feats in Third Edition, in 4e this is a rather small change to the game's overall balance. The power gain by a PC of three feats over 30 levels isn't particularly great, and even at level 5 (when these feats will be the greatest percentage of the character's power) the character won't be all that much stronger than a level 5 character created by the book. So what does this accomplish?

1. Boost to multiclassing. This is perhaps the biggest impact of this variant on the game. In the base rules, a nonhuman who wants to paragon multiclass is spending 4 of the 6 feats they gain during the heroic tier on multiclass - two-thirds of their total. Under this variant, that drops to just below half (4/9). This allows the character to either expand on their multiclass's abilities with feats, take feats for their main class or race, or just have room for customization apart from multiclassing during the Heroic tier. My opinion? This is a good thing.

2. Concept-centric feats. This category covers things like (again) multiclassing, bloodlines, weapon specialization, or just proficiency in weapons or armor - things that fill the player's mind with possibilities. Under the core rules, a given character at level 1 is limited to a "staple" feat like Weapon Focus OR a concept-centric feat; under this variant the character can have both. This ensures that there will be feat slots enough for the concept-centric feats that a player can take them without feeling gimped for missing a staple feat. My view? This is a good thing.

3. 3 more feats by 30. Overall, I see this as being very nearly negligable in its impact. However, should we see the need to mitigate it, I would suggest removing the feat slots at 16, 24, and 28. With retraining, the character could end the campaign with the same feat selection they would have had in the core rules... they'd just get three of those slots earlier.

Note: This post is not to say whether or not we're doing this... that's still very much in the air. I just wanted to discuss some of the implications. Overall, given the end results of this house rule, I'm rather fond of it... but there could be implications I'm not seeing.

[Bladedancer]

I think that I probably have a more loose-handed approach to rules modification than some - certainly more so than George or Shiningwolf. I think my core attitude can be accurately summed with the statement "Is it an improvement?" Things that aren't broken can still act as a drag on player enjoyment, or on the ability of the rules to represent accurately the player's vision of the character they're playing.

I certainly don't think putting some form of limiter on the use of bonus feats would be a bad thing - weapon, armor, multi-class and skill feats tend to get neglected in this edition, so any chance to give them a hand is a nice touch - but I also don't see a strong need for it. As Trail says, the impact from the power perspective is relatively negligible - 3 more heroic tier feats at level 30 - but the benefit in expanded flavor and customization options is substantial, particularly at the lower levels.

In a bit of a sidestep to the rule, which I don't think this has anything directly to do with, I'm going to address Shiningwolf's point. I take my cue on 4e concepting from the description of the three tiers in the core mechanic - Heroic, Paragon, Epic. If there were a tier labeled "Novice", I would be more inclined to think that low level characters should be 'learning the ropes.' As it is, I think of a 1st level character in 4e as the equivalent of a lawyer of 25 who's finished law school, has a year of two of courtroom experience under their belts, and is a rising star in their firm - not the biggest guy in a city, but probably the most impressive person anyone in the local small town is going to meet in the next few years.

Put more forcefully: 4e PCs are special and bad-ass right out of the gate. They don't kill the local rats, or hunt local brigands in a nervous pack - they're the guy who, on being stopped by said brigands, lays them all flat in two minutes and then gets back on his horse. Whether that's by experience, raw power, a special destiny or clever wits, that's the scale on which a Heroic tier PC operates.

[Nephallim]

I'm all for adding the extra feats, limited to:

*Skill Training
*Skill Focus
*Armor Proficiency
*Multiclass
*Some others considered cool to have for concept but mayb not great mechanically, such as quick draw

I don't think there's a great need to do so, as the only builds I really feel strapped for feats on are martial... and I think that's just because there's more material out there for martial in general. I'm a little afraid of people feeling forced to multiclass because there aren't any other interesting feats to take at those levels. Also... this will encourage a lot of different types of characters to upgrade their armor... unless they dumped the necessary stats, I really can't see an avenger not buying up to hide with this houserule.

I guess my problem with the houserule is this: part of why I like multiclassing with characters is because it really feels like I'm making an investment. This houserule sort of nixes that feeling.

That said, it might be worth a try.

Maybe we could try it out when you visit Slidell, Trailfoot?

[Shiningwolf]

First for Trailfoots points.
1. I agree with Michael on why he feels that adding these extra feats take away some of the impact I associate with investing the slots to multiclass. However, out of the three points this is the one I mind least.
2. My feelings on this are very similar to the previous point, though I see this as a much less compelling reason. No matter how I look at it, due to the sheer number of feats out there, which will only be increasing, players are always going to feel a little gimped on feat selection, especially if you are going for very specific concepts. I have only built on character that I had no feeling of "I wish i had more feat slots" and that was because at the time it was the most poorly supported class with feats, wizard.
3. I will have to put this bluntly. This makes no sense. So to make us feel better at heroic, we take away some of the benefits of the later tiers? This is the only real suggestion I have seen that actually makes me just .
Overall, I have a feeling there will be some implications we are not seeing. Feats are the most consistent form for characters to increase in power, no matter what you choose. You get feats more often that you do the half level bonus. This wont really be a problem if the gaming mechanics do not play to much of a role in this, which if we get rid of dicerolls all together, which it looks like we will, then my point is rather moot.
For bladedancer, well, I just have to say that I am going to have to ask us to agree to disagree. I think this is just a difference in our approaches.And as far as the rule modifying, yes I agree with you there. My first approach is "Is there a need for a change?" then "Is it an improvement." Even for the second I still don't see this as a real improvement. It just seems like an arbitrary rule change to me.

After all of that, I enjoy that we have been debating this so much. It just seems funny that we all seem to feel rather strongly about this.