Feats that characters Should Already Have

[FlaminCows]

Which feats do you thing D&D 3.5 characters should already have, and not have to spend a feat choice for? It is one of those easily-implemented house rules, so having a list would be a good benefit for fledgeling DMs everywhere.

What I mean is, for example, Two-Weapon Fighting. Fighting with two weapons in D&D incurs huge penalties by default, so huge that it might as well be impossible to hit unless you spend a feat on it. Yet in real life fighting with two weapons is far from unusual, and certainly not too difficult. A person with a rapier wouldn't even question using a dagger in the off-hand unless the terms of the fight forbid it. Apart from the real-life argument, there is also the in-game one — that fighting with two weapons takes up too many feats compared to what it can do.

That's just one example, and your ideas don't necessarily need to have a real-life component. I think the benefits of the Battle Blessing and Swift Call feats from Complete Champion should be default for the Paladin because they improve two abilities that the paladin gains after level 3. The Paladin is a dip class as it is, and characters with more levels of Paladin need some extra goodies. Also, allowing the paladin to use most of his magic as Swift action allows him to use it and fight at the same time, which makes the Paladin feel more like a Paladin.

Other ideas could be:
Knight Training and Monastic Training for everything (the Paladin and Monk classes shouldn't have multi-class restrictions),
Track and Urban Tracking (they're more tools for the DM rather than tools for the player, so having them as functions of Survival and Gather Information works better than making people spend a feat on it)
Reserve feats (Not quite the same way, though. Having at-will magic only makes the game better, and you should be able to do this without spending feats on it. You could reduce the number of spell slots all spellcasters have and give them at-will abilities instead, as if they always have magic "in reserve")

So, which feats do you think should be made into the normal abilities of characters?

[Prime32]

Active Shield Defense (PHB2)
Adaptive Style (for swordsages)
Battle Blessing
Combat Expertise
Combat Reflexes (possibly tied to BAB rather than Dex)
Craft X feats (based on ranks in a relevant Craft skill rather than CL)
Einhander (PHB2)
Extra Rage/Smiting/etc. (effectively upgrades these abilities to 1/encounter)
Heighten Spell
Improved Bull Rush/Disarm/Grapple/Sunder/Trip (the "no AoOs" part at least)
Knight/Monastic Training
Leadership (based on fighter levels; IIRC this is how it worked in earlier editions?)
Mage Slayer (minus the CL penalty)
Power Attack
Shield Ward (PHB2)
Tashalatora ( )
Weapon Finesse (it's meant for rogues, but they can't even take it until lv3!)

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Skill Focus feats and similar +2/+2 feats.


There's gotta be around 1000 feats that don't
get used at all, if you know the ins and outs.
Their use would be flavor more than anything.
You could get say 10 every level, and it
wouldn't change the overall power levels.

[linklord231]

Prime:  why not just say that spellcaster's can't cast defensively, if you're handing out Mage Slayer for free?
I might also add Natural Spell to the list, since every druid ever has it anyway. 

Slightly off topic, but in a similar vein I would drop all the prerequisites from Spring Attack - it still costs a feat, but only 1 instead of 3.  Oh and it also includes Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz or whatever it is that lets you make more attacks. 

[FlaminCows]

Prime:  why not just say that spellcaster's can't cast defensively, if you're handing out Mage Slayer for free?
I might also add Natural Spell to the list, since every druid ever has it anyway. 

Slightly off topic, but in a similar vein I would drop all the prerequisites from Spring Attack - it still costs a feat, but only 1 instead of 3.  Oh and it also includes Bounding Assault and Rapid Blitz or whatever it is that lets you make more attacks. 

To the first question: yes, that would be the effect of it, just like the effect of handing out Knightly Training for free is just that the multiclass rule in the Paladin's description gets removed. The point isn't that you say "you get these feats at the start", but rather "these feats' effects shouldn't even be necessary, their effects should be part of the basic rules."

As for Natural Spell: I'd be more inclined to just remove the feat, as allowing one to replace their physical stats with no drawback is clearly game-breaking.

I agree with Spring Attack, and I'd say that example is close enough to the purpose of the thread. I'd remove Dodge and Mobility from the game altogether and all feats with them as prerequisites can be gained without them, because neither feat adds fun to the game. Having to keep track of how your AC changes when attacked by different opponents, and remembering that your AC is four higher on opportunity attacks? Pointless book-keeping. I'm pretty sure the only reason anybody ever takes Dodge and Mobility is to get access to other feats that require them, and none of those feats are powerful enough to require such an entry tax.

[Libertad]

Power Attack and Combat Expertise.  Seems like something most people skilled in combat would eventually pick up.

Improved Unarmed Strike, because being able to do 1d3 lethal damage with your fists is suboptimal for most melee guys anyway.

Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot.  Because every ranged build worth their salt already has these.

[littha]

As for Natural Spell: I'd be more inclined to just remove the feat, as allowing one to replace their physical stats with no drawback is clearly game-breaking.

That would be Wild Shape itself, not Natural spell. Natural spell just stops one class ability from interfering with another which is something that should never be allowed to happen anyway.

[Empirate]

As for Natural Spell: I'd be more inclined to just remove the feat, as allowing one to replace their physical stats with no drawback is clearly game-breaking.

That would be Wild Shape itself, not Natural spell. Natural spell just stops one class ability from interfering with another which is something that should never be allowed to happen anyway.

Important part in the original quote bolded. That's the point, really: Natural Spell makes the (rather large) opportunity cost of Wildshape go away, turning an awesome option Druids get into an awesome corollary of playing a Druid. Instead of a meaningful decision that impacts most of your actions further down the road (wildshape without NS), being in a powerful shape all the time just comes with the Druid's territory (wildshape with NS). That's the reason Natural Spell must go (and is banned in my games)!


But back on topic. Feats whose effects should already be in the game for everybody equally:

Weapon Finesse,
Power Attack,
Combat Expertise (stupid feat and ability score tax!),
all the Improved [combat maneuver] feats (why not let non-"I hit him again" tactics be viable without investing feats first?),
all metamagic feats (I'd remove the cost reducers, though... and no Invisible Spell in my game!),
Leadership (no cohorts though - just hire an NPC for good money, if you want one!),
Point Blank Shot (pure feat tax, no appreciable benefit, and logically, you shouldn't require training to hit better at point blank range...),
Precise Shot (What were they thinking? Another feat just to not be hugely and arbitrarily penalized for your choice of fighting style?).

If these (and other, similar) things were automatic stuff you could just do if you were of that mind, everybody would be much more flexible, and much of the "feat tax" feeling would go away!

[littha]

As for Natural Spell: I'd be more inclined to just remove the feat, as allowing one to replace their physical stats with no drawback is clearly game-breaking.

That would be Wild Shape itself, not Natural spell. Natural spell just stops one class ability from interfering with another which is something that should never be allowed to happen anyway.

Important part in the original quote bolded. That's the point, really: Natural Spell makes the (rather large) opportunity cost of Wildshape go away, turning an awesome option Druids get into an awesome corollary of playing a Druid. Instead of a meaningful decision that impacts most of your actions further down the road (wildshape without NS), being in a powerful shape all the time just comes with the Druid's territory (wildshape with NS). That's the reason Natural Spell must go (and is banned in my games)!

Because 5+ class levels, a feat slot and one of limited uses/day of your ability is obviously no cost.

[FlaminCows]

Yes, Littha, a single feat is no cost compared to the immense increase in ability scores. Class levels and uses/day are literally not a cost, as you would be gaining them anyway.

Wild Shape is a powerful ability, one that lets the druid be a potent combatant. Its drawback is that you are either a combat monster or a spellcaster. What this means is that a Druid still has to care about his physical ability scores because he must survive while casting. Under normal conditions, the choice of whether to wild shape or not is a tactical one. You choose which powerful ability is most useful for the situation at hand.

With Natural Spell that choice doesn't exist, as it is always better to remain in wild shape. As such, a druid's physical abilities don't matter at all as they will always be in wild shape anyway. This removes the build choice of how to spend your points, and breaks some basic assumptions of the game rules. There's a difference between powerful and game-breaking. Natural Spell is the latter, and the game is better without it, including for the player whose character is a druid.

[nijineko]

Leadership (based on fighter levels; IIRC this is how it worked in earlier editions?)

actually, it was standard for most classes. fighters received it earliest - and had more than the rest, iirc, but monks, thieves, bards, paladins, rangers, clerics, priests, and druids all received followers of differing numbers and kind automatically as part of leveling up.

oddly, mages and other specialists did not automatically gain followers. i guess it goes with the cloistered in the tower grumpy old coot mentality associated with wizardly types. or at least i didn't spot in in my quick read-over of the old 2nd ed phb.

[littha]

With Natural Spell that choice doesn't exist, as it is always better to remain in wild shape.

And I assert that having contradictory class abilities is bad design in itself.

[FlaminCows]

oddly, mages and other specialists did not automatically gain followers. i guess it goes with the cloistered in the tower grumpy old coot mentality associated with wizardly types. or at least i didn't spot in in my quick read-over of the old 2nd ed phb.

It isn't in the PHB, but there were similar rules for mages in sourcebooks. I remember it was in the Complete Book of Necromancers and and I think one other one as well. It said that mages attract apprentices, and particularly high-level mages could even open their own school. Not nearly as many people as the Fighter got and not nearly as useful, but it was still kinda nifty. Followers in AD&D were much more class-specific and flavourful than Leadership in 3e.

It also wasn't used very often, usually left in the background because managing your underlings was too much of a bother. I understand why WotC made followers into something not "core" (it is in the core rulebook, but it is an optional rule). I agree that it would be better as a separate thing rather than a feat choice, but I don't think it should be a class feature, Fighter or no. Managing an army is a very different play style, and it would be better suited as a special, optional rule for an alternative way to play high-level D&D. Instead of fantasy superheroes, you have fantasy lords & army management.

And I assert that having contradictory class abilities is bad design in itself.

I disagree.

I'll take as an example the Chameleon prestige class: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041210b. The whole point of that class is that it has a number of contradictory class abilities; it is meant to serve in multiple roles, but not all at the same time. This is good and fun, leading to varying play style depending on the needs of the moment.

Your assertion that contradictory class features equals bad design is flawed, as there is no reason for it to be so. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true: contradictory class features leads to not doing the same thing all the time, which keeps the game fresh, and is therefore good game design.

[littha]

contradictory class features leads to not doing the same thing all the time, which keeps the game fresh, and is therefore good game design.

So monks being unable to use their flurry and fast movement at the same time is good games design?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wildshape gets hated on way too much.

Polymorph spells are just plain better, and the cleric can make the fighter worthless w/ some buff spells and still wield weapons.

Ultimately being a big stupid fighter is a crappy role, and even w/ natural spell and wild shape, druid is in no way superior to wizard.

God, it's like how the "martials suck" complaint gets unfairly boiled down to "fighters suck" and ignores all the other classes in plight, some worse than the fighter...

[zugschef]

eschew materials should be a sorcerer class feature.

[Jackinthegreen]

eschew materials should be a sorcerer class feature.

Or spontaneous caster feature in general.

[linklord231]

Your assertion that contradictory class features equals bad design is flawed, as there is no reason for it to be so. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true: contradictory class features leads to not doing the same thing all the time, which keeps the game fresh, and is therefore good game design.

The Monk would like to have a word with you.

Natural spell's marginal usefulnes changes depending on how you want to play your druid.  If you want to be big and bad in melee, Natural Spell is ironically less usefull, because the only thing that changes if you don't have it is that your buff routine is 1 standard action longer (buff yourself, then Wildshape instead of buff yourself while wildshaped).  If you want to be a more caster-oriented druid, Natural Spell lets you pretty much never get hit.  You can disguise yourself as a little sparrow or something and cast spells all day.  Just stay out of the way of AoE's and no monster will ever try to eat you. 

If you really want to nerf druids, don't take away Natural Spell.  Just make their animal companion advance like a Ranger's (and while you're at it, give rangers full AC progression) and change Wildshape to work more like Shapeshift druids, or like Pathfinder's polymorph line.  I'd say just declare "all druids are Shapeshift varients," but I really don't like them.  The forms are too limited (no aquatic form?) and giving up your AC entirely is just too much.

[oslecamo]

contradictory class features leads to not doing the same thing all the time, which keeps the game fresh, and is therefore good game design.

So monks being unable to use their flurry and fast movement at the same time is good games design?

I heard Tome of Battle's stance system to be pretty popular. Only one at a time. Similarly the druid could and should have a casting stance and an animal "stance", not both at the same time.

[FlaminCows]

contradictory class features leads to not doing the same thing all the time, which keeps the game fresh, and is therefore good game design.

So monks being unable to use their flurry and fast movement at the same time is good games design?

Association fallacy, and a straw man argument no less. No, that is not what I am saying, and you know it. There are other examples in the game where you must choose between different abilities and you can't use all of them at the same time. The Swordsage has many stances, yet he can't be in them all at once. Prepared casters choose a whole subset of class abilities each day.

The Monk's class abilities are poorly designed not because he can't use them all at the same time, but for other reasons entirely. If Flurry of Blows could be used while moving, the Monk would still be badly designed. I could go on about what exactly is wrong with the Monk, but you've all heard enough about that anyway.

Linklord: your entire post only argues towards my point. You say taking away Natural Spell isn't the way to nerf druids, yet you also say that using Natural Spell as a caster-oriented druid lets you "pretty much never get hit". That's not exactly a good example of a balanced feat, and on top of that he would be able to dump his physical stats in favour of his mental stats for a further power boost. Everything you said suggests that Natural Spell is a problem after all.