Monks lose Tashalatora.
No feats = crafting would be viciously effected by this.See, I think that's more a problem with 3.5's crafting system. Should it require feats? I don't think it should.
I had a similar conversation with one of my friends several months ago but I was unable to homebrew this mechanic. Can you please show me an example of a "how a feat should be" ??It isn't so much about how a feat should be as how combat maneuvers should be, or how classes should be. Basically, if the action or class is useless without the feat, then all or some of the benefit of the feat should be a baseline part of the action or class.
Monks lose Tashalatora.
Monks lose the ability to be replaced by not-Monks?! :)
IIRC the conversations around "feats should be nice-not-necessary" were more about feat taxes.
4e contained the best example -- every character needed a specific feat to maintain attack accuracy starting around level 12 -- but there were probably examples from 3e as well.
Darkstalker might be a valid example. "Take this feat or those skill points you spent were wasted."
I think the basic idea is that things that are considered mandatory, or common sense, for a given class should be a class feature option, not a feat. Feats could almost be considered something that should be a meta-mechanic.Fully agreed. This is one of the reasons I despise single-class subsystems, because all the feats that apply to the subsystem only matter for one class.
I think the basic idea is that things that are considered mandatory, or common sense, for a given class should be a class feature option, not a feat. Feats could almost be considered something that should be a meta-mechanic.Fully agreed. This is one of the reasons I despise single-class subsystems, because all the feats that apply to the subsystem only matter for one class.
Feats should not be needed for basic mechanical function. And for everything above t4, that's true.Let's reverse this. Tier 3 and up should require feats to function. Tier 4 and below shouldn't. You want more power? Build harder. That's fair.
PMBC: How would your suggestion work for requiring tier 3+ classes to require feats while tier 4- don't?Probably something like having Bards outright need music effects from feats to function, maybe offloading some of the current scaling onto metamagic (halve current scaling rates, then make the associated feats pick up that chunk of scaling. For example, Fireball becomes 1d6 per 2 CL, but Empower Spell then gives +50% and +5% per CL. Ranges are halved, then Extend Spell doubles range and gives +10% range per CL) to have then need to get their tightly-controlled metamagic reducers. Or tightly control their access to known spells, needing feats to expand it, like having a limit on different spells prepared in much the same way 5e does it, then feats open it up more.
"Fair" depends on how you measure it, and I do not think feat taxes are the way to go with upper tiers. The imbalance problem isn't about how hard it is to build something: as soon as one person knows how to build it and posts it online, everybody else knows too.Feats should not be needed for basic mechanical function. And for everything above t4, that's true.Let's reverse this. Tier 3 and up should require feats to function. Tier 4 and below shouldn't. You want more power? Build harder. That's fair.