Thursday, June 16, 2011

Feats defeat.

Well why were Feats created? In new school gaming the idea was to provide a way to do cool things.

Like tripping someone.

But why do you need a Feat to do things?

In a game with Gamemaster Fiat things such as a bullrush, trip, sundering of a weapon were done on the fly by adding a few points of difficulty to the too hit number or subtracting from the player's roll.

Wow in this short article I just provided you with an unlimited source and list of feats.


  1. My theory is that, somewhere, there was a DM who was unfair to his players. He had actual malice towards them. The players, who later went to work at WotC, decided that they'd better have a rule to keep that DM in line. Feats are the triumph of the rules lawyers. IMHO.

  2. > was to provide a way to do cool things.

    I really don't think that was goal of feats. Rather; to transfer "power"/"control" from DM to players (as in many other parts of 3.x). To provide artificial scarcity and things to "buy" so more emphasis placed on character building rather than playing. To create "need" for endless upgrades/splat books.

    Feats are unneeded and "bad". I see little value in backporting them.

  3. I have always looked at feats as advanced training. They come out the best (story wise) when they modify some skill or spell or provide an advanced combat technique. When 3.0 came out I was reading a lot of celtic myths and the things that Cú Chulainn could do were very much like feats.

  4. Game mechanically, feats are just selectable class features. They can represent a good many things, but ultimately, I've found they are just class features that are not tied to any specific class (usually).

    My Two Coppers, Anyway,