Talk:Feat Purchasing (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	Enigma favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I think it's a good variant rule for introducing more feats into a campaign.

	SecondDeath777 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Enigma likes it, Eiji likes it, and it makes life easier for my particularly complex builds. Game, set, match. I dig, hardcore.

	DanielDraco likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	There's no denying that this is strong as hell. But with it being a variant rule, that doesn't matter as long as the power change is uniform. This is a fun rule in high-power campaigns meant to encourage elaborate builds.

	Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Context matters, and this works best as a patch for classically feat-poor D&D. It's lost some shine ever since Pathfinder's feat system came out, but for what it is, this is a good thing. I can't fault it for that. Whenever I have a need to throw more feats in there but make it not quite free, this does the job well.

Why do you want to make it not quite free? So the person who dumps INT feels sad that they don't get any skills whatsoever? Making things have a price increases depth only when you could conceivably choose not to pay it. Well, there's also the flaw option, where you certainly will get your full allotment, but each one gives you a flavorful penalty that can be used for some silly roleplaying, but that's not really a price so much as an opportunity. --Foxwarrior (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

	Havvy is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	If sticking to WotC feats, this is fine. But homebrew feats have a proper level of power that feats actually mean more than a couple skill points.

	Surgo dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	Nowadays, feats are generally pretty great so this is nothing but a pure power-up for guys who get a lot of skills. Taking an extra +2 Int will give you 3 extra feats over the course of your lifetime, that's a pretty fabulous trade. I think this article has outlived its usefulness.

The-Marksman dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

I could almost get behind this concept if not for a couple things. 1. Simply put, Flaws are a better system, 1 for 1 trade off, fair to everyone since everyone can take the same amount, more balanced since there is an offsetting penalty for your feat, and more flavorful during the campaign gameplay. 2. This isn't fair to everyone, a Rogue could spare 1 skill point and get 3 extra feats and if he is a Human with high intelligence, he wont even miss the skill points, but then if you have a non human sorcerer with a 10 int then hes only getting 2 skill points per level. Hes going to need Concentration just to do his job, which leaves him with 1 skill point, which puts him in a place of trying to decide between either putting it in Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft, or doing this feature just to keep up with the Rogue whos ecstatic because he just got 3 feats for basically free. 3. Even if you ignore ALL of that other stuff, theres still one other thing I dont like as well which is the levels at which you get the feats. You already naturally get feats at ALL of these intervals, which allows you to double up on feats at certain levels which is more balance impacting than if you gained them at a separate level. It would feel more special if you got most of them at intervals where you don't normally get feats already. Maybe like levels 5, 10, 15, 20, then only 15 overlaps. That'd be 8 skill points for the 1st one, and then every 5 skill points for each one there after.

	Qwertyu63 dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	Why would you think this is a good idea? Buying feats for skill points? Alright, coming back over a year later; on a second read, this isn't quite as bad as it first appeared. Still a bad idea though.

	Fluffykittens dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	Trading skill points for feats is too good of an investment. If you want characters to have more feats, give feats every 2nd level instead of every third.

	Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	It's like Flaws, but without the entertainment value.

Leziad opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

I heavily dislike this rule. My reasoning is that skills should not allow you to get more feats, especially when doing so make character even less versatile and effective out of combat for a straight combat power boost. I also hate it based on how utterly powerful it is, to the point where every single character NEED to use this rule in order to remain competitive with each others in a game where this rules is used.

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	What others have said.

	Franken Kesey opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Too easy to abuse. Additionally, this gives an advantage to players with high skill points (like wizards), while giving a disadvantage to barbarians and fighters (who need the feats more).

Current Ratings: 2 Favors, 2 Likes, 1 Neutral, 4 Dislike, and 3 Oppose. Why is this still a community neutral? There are three more negative ratings than positive. It should be at the very least a community disliked.--Franken Kesey 09:54, 24 March 2019 (MDT)

Bump.--Franken Kesey 11:00, 28 March 2019 (MDT)

Skill Ranks

So if feat training is not a class skill, you can only put in 1/2 ranks, meaning that it will cost 6 skill points for the bonus feat 173.33.2.57 15:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. -- Eiji Hyrule 21:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

If it takes 6 skill points to get a bonus feat, and you're going to spend 6 skill points whether it be class or cross-class, and ranks don't matter at all... wait, why are you making it a cross class for everyone? Why not just make this a class skill for everyone where you get a new feat every 6 ranks and save people from doing division and having arguments about feats or class abilities that give people new class skills not applying to this one (because it already would be a class skill)? Why the extra layer of complication? - TarkisFlux 23:22, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree actually. Mind you, I didn't make this, this is old work from an author long forgotten. Since my wording is off today, wanna ive a short at rewording it? -- Eiji Hyrule 23:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

OK. You can has reword. - TarkisFlux 01:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Feat Gained Levels

If you start with a first or second level character, you have to make yourself weaker than others now to become stronger later. This messes with an equal power curve (if DnD had one...). Also, you gain feats when you would already gain feats, (levels equal to 3+6n) so those levels become doubly important with this variant. These are perceived problems to me that I would solve by making it so that you gain a feat when you spend skill ranks equal to 4+6n, so you get feats at levels 1, 7, 13, and 19. I'd also allow you to get another feat when you have 24 skill ranks so that you have a reason to take this at level 20 if you don't use epic rules, giving a capstone to this skill, which needs one for utility. --Havvy 04:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the page states you gain feats at levels X, Y, and Z, there's no one to stop you from delaying your purchase a level or two (or more). -- Jota 13:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what the hububub is about. If you put your skills into it at low level, you get a feat at 3rd, 9th, and 15th.... and if you store up all your points til you're like level 16 or something, you dump them all at once and get three feats still. Which is fine and all, but either way if you spent them or stored them, you aren't using those skill points so they're a "waste". I don't see the advantage of waiting til high level. -- Eiji-kun 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't passing judgment, merely making a point. Waiting is good because you can fill pre-reqs, but other than that a feat now is almost always better than a feat tomorrow, what with tomorrow's uncertainty and all. -- Jota 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My play-style is that I don't change which skills I choose to increment from level to level unless I'm either trying to meet prerequisites or my intelligence modifier changes. Thus, when I choose somewhere to spend skillpoints, I want it to be useful at levels 1 and 20 specifically, and gain some bonus at other levels in-between. Ultimately, it is to each, their own, but this skill usage messes my easy level up progression a lot. --Havvy 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)