Pathfinder Class Analysis 4: Druid

Core Concept: Druids are a class which I can take or leave. I understand that they’re a favorite for many people, but I’ve never felt the slightest draw towards playing one, nor have I ever GMed for one. That’s not to say I’d like to see the class removed from the game. Truth be told there’s only one of the nine core classes which I honestly think the game would be better without. The druid is fine, it’s just not my bag.

I actually quite like druids as NPCs. Given how the class’s priorities are described, I have no idea why a druid would ever accompany the party on any non-wilderness adventures. It isn’t hard to make up a reason, but any reason I can come up with is a special circumstance. Every other class has a very clear reason for adventuring. Either they’re out for fame and fortune, or they’re seeking knowledge, or challenge, or the destruction of evil.

But not the druid! The druid’s explicitly stated, number 1 priority is the protection of nature. How is that goal served by exploring a dungeon, or sorting out problems in a city? The only time a druid isn’t out of place is when they’re in nature, which seems like a terribly restrictive campaign to me.

Spells/Spontaneous Casting/Orsions: My thoughts on these abilities are not significantly different from my thoughts on the cleric abilities of the same names. So just read that, if you haven’t already. (The druid flavoring of Spontaneous Casting is kinda cool, though.)

Bonus Languages: The idea of a special Druidic language which only druids know has been around for as long as I’ve been aware of the class; but to my knowledge nothing really cool has ever been done with it. I don’t dislike it, it is flavorful, but I don’t really see the point of it. Druids can speak with other druids in secret? Whoop-de-doo.

I don’t think it would bother me so much if the game didn’t place so much emphasis on the absolute, sacrosanct secrecy of the language. What’s so important about it that teaching it to someone is verboten? Perhaps the druidic language allows a character to speak with trees or animals? That would be pretty cool.

Nature Bond: One of the many changes Pathfinder made to the classes as they were presented in D&D 3.5 is that many classes now include a choice at low levels. It’s a change I’ve never been able to make my mind up about. I like choices and I like customization, but I don’t like the excessive decision making that Pathfinder requires of players before they start to play the game.

In this specific case, Nature’s Bond allows the druid to choose between gaining a cleric domain to supplement their spellcasting, or gaining the services of an animal companion. If you’re a smarter gamer than I, you might notice that all of the ‘either/or’ abilities which were added in Pathfinder allow the player to choose between a cool ability for themselves, and a companion of some kind.

It would seem that this was done because companion creatures are complicated, nearly doubling the bookeeping work that the player must do on their character. Turning companion creatures into a choice is a clever way to allow players who like such creatures to keep them, while allowing players who don’t to play the class without the hassle of maintaining a second character sheet. It’s an elegant solution, but I may have an even more elegant one: make companion creatures simpler.

I realize it’s simplistic of me to say that as though it’s an easy matter, or as if everyone would agree with me, but I’m serious. My wizard’s familiar does not need feats and skill points.

Nature Sense/Resist Nature’s Lure: Both of these are filler abilities, and I hate filler abilities. They provide minor bonuses in strange edge-case situations, and nobody ever, ever remembers they actually have them when they need them. The only time anybody remembers what “Nature Sense” does is 20 minutes after they failed a saving throw against a fey creature’s spell-like ability.

Shit like this hurts the game. The rules of the game should support the players as they face the challenges of the game. The rules should not, in themselves, be a memory challenge.

Wild Empathy: While I really like this ability, I’m always a little frustrated by it because it relies on Pathfinder’s diplomacy check. And the diplomacy check is a pretty weak system already. Perhaps redesigning that ought to be a priority for me in the near future.

Woodland Stride/Trackless Step: These two abilities form an interesting parallel to the two bullshit filler abilities noted above. It’s difficult to really judge the relative strengths of abilities which are completely different from one another, but I think it’s fair to say that Woodland Stride and Trackless Step are roughly equal in ‘power’ to Nature Sense and Resist Nature’s Lure. But while those two abilities are frustratingly specific and impossible to remember, these two abilities are not. Lets briefly examine why.

  1. Woodland Stride and Trackless Step are both strongly thematic abilities. “+2 save v. spell like abilities from fey creatures” is somewhat related to being a druid, but it’s not really something you think of when you think of a druid. On the other hand, moving swiftly through thick underbrush without leaving any tracks is exactly what you expect from a nature-themed fantasy character.
  2. Both of these abilities are absolute. There’s no rolling involved, no bonus bonuses or penalties to take into consideration. They are very simple. You always move through heavy underbrush at full speed. You never leave tracks unless you want to. More abilities should be like this.

Wild Shape: The core ability of the druid class is, embarrassingly, one I don’t really have anything to say about. It works just fine as written. I suppose the only thing I would change is that druids being able to transform into elementals isn’t thematically consistent, I think. The elements != nature. The two are closely related, but while druids are depicted as being creatures who wish to preserve the balance of nature, elementals are depicted as creatures who care only for whatever element they represent. Fire elementals would be just as happy to see the entire world on fire; water elementals would love to see the world flooded, and so on.

But we’re pretty deep into opinion territory on that one. I wouldn’t call it a serious critique.

Venom Immunity: This is…fine. Druids are one with nature; so they eventually become immune to poisons. Somebody should tell Batman that Poison Ivy is a level 9 druid.

A Thousand Faces: I honestly don’t see how this is relevant to druids at all. It’s kind of a baffling ability, actually. Why do druids gain the ability to change their appearance? Is it because they can transform into animals and this was the next logical step? Is it because druids are secretive? I could really use some fluff here, but the class descriptions are almost entirely crunch in Pathfinder.

Timeless Body: So let me get this straight. Druids revere everything about nature. They revere its neutral disposition. They see beauty in fungus, predation, and decay just as much as they see it in a beautiful tree or a crystal lake. And once they become really really good at revering nature, their reward is to become removed from it?
If anything this seems as though it should be a wizard or sorcerer ability. It doesn’t make any sense for druids.

A Defense of Crafting

Shortly after posting the first iteration of my alternate Pathfinder crafting system last week, I was perusing the blag-o-cube, and encountered a relevant essay over on 1d30. The post is primarily about the general pointlessness of NPC classes (something I heartily agree with), but briefly diverges into an argument against the very idea that players should pursue crafting within the game. It’s written in a very amusing fashion, and I recommend you take a minute to follow the link above. Upon first reading it my own feelings were conflicted. On the one hand, I’ve always enjoyed crafting within the game, and to have that pursuit demeaned bruised my ego a bit.* On the other, I found the author’s comments (forgive me, I do not know his or her name) compelling. They’re not just spewing vitriol at something they dislike; they’re making strong points against the inclusion of crafting.

Add to that a twitter exchange which occurred the next day on my personal account, after I shared Jack’s analysis of my crafting posts. My good tweep @Grimnir_, it seems, shares the opinion of 1d30.

It had honestly never occurred to me before that there were people who didn’t think crafting was a good part of the game. It would seem that a defense of the crafting skill is in order. There are several issues which have been raised, so I’ll address each in turn.

*Only for a moment, mind you. It’s a fool who ties their ego into the game they play; but that doesn’t mean I don’t have moments of foolishness.

Crafting is a distraction from the game.

It’s true that crafting is not a core element of D&D or its descendants. It’s difficult to define precisely what the core of D&D is, but if I were to attempt it, I’d say that “D&D is a game where the GM describes an environment containing challenges and rewards, which must be navigated by the players, who each control an individual character.” A lot of different scenarios can fit within that description, but crafting items is not one of them. So it would follow that if crafting items is not part of the game’s core element, then it either supports the game’s core element, or distracts from it.

Obviously, items and equipment support the game’s core. Swords and armor are required to overcome certain types of challenges, while rope and 10′ poles are required to solve other types of challenges. Further, I would argue that modifying those items, or coming up with new items entirely, is very much a core element of D&D. Navigating the challenges of the game environment is an exercise in creativity, and creating new tools to accomplish tasks better is a big part of that. For example, my 10′ poles often have a small pocket knife mounted on one end, and a large hook mounted on the other, because I’ve found that modified version of the tool to be much more versatile than a 10′ long piece of wood. Of course, an NPC in town can take care of that for me for a handful of coins. But I, like many players, prefer to be self sufficient when possible.

At this point I’m dangerously close to constructing a straw man, so lets be clear. Crafting rules aren’t about adding a hook to your 10′ pole, they’re about creating rings of invisibility and swords that shoot lasers. But aren’t those, also, tools? If a player comes up with a great plan which they’re really proud of, but it requires a magic item they don’t have, then should that plan be abandoned? I’d prefer my players didn’t abandon an interesting idea just because they lack one of the necessary tools. Should I then support them by placing the item they need in a treasure hoard? I’d prefer not to do that either. I don’t think players should be able to dictate what items are found. The problem could potentially be solved if players are able to purchase magic items off the shelves in a magic item shop, but I have no interest in allowing such shops to exist in my game.

That leaves only crafting; either by commission from a craftsperson, or by the player’s own hands. The former method is great, and I’ve used it many times myself. But if the player wishes to be more involved in the process, I can’t think of a good reason why I would deny them the right to try.

All of that being said, though, the argument that crafting is a distraction is a strong one.

Crafting takes time away from other players.

I’m not certain if this argument is based on a difference of GMing styles, or a misunderstanding of when crafting would be handled, but it is not a problem. The other players generally aren’t around when crafting is going on. In my games, there are set periods of ‘down time,’ which normally take place between gaming sessions. Unless a session ends in medias res, then the next session will begin a week or so later. Adventurers need time to rest and recuperate, after all. This is particularly useful for wizards; who even in the absence of crafting have a lot of time consuming tasks to perform; Scribing scrolls, researching new spells, etc.

I like to use this time between sessions as a resource which the players must manage. They have a number of tasks available to them, all of which will take at least a day or more to complete. These tasks don’t require the player’s direct involvement, so there’s no need for more than a sentence or two letting me know which task their character is engaged in. Perhaps they’re carousing, or searching for a new hireling, or trying to learn a new language…

…or crafting.

Regardless of what task the character engages in, I can say from experience that it does not take up undue game time. And, in fact, it has the added benefit of keeping players in thinking about the game during the time between sessions.

Crafting requires a great deal of study and practice; study and practice which an adventurer should not have time for.

Strictly speaking, this is true. Adventurers are not ‘weekend warriors’ who delve into dungeons deep and caverns old on Saturday/Sunday, then ascend to the surface so they can return to their tailoring shop the other 5 days of the week. Learning to be a master craftsperson is a major undertaking which can require a lifetime of dedication. It’s not something an adventurer would have time for.

And I’m going to be very blunt: I don’t care.

If others do care, that’s fine by me. Different people are comfortable at different levels of verisimilitude. For myself, I can suspend my disbelief and accept that a 12th level fighter also has mad swordmaking skills.

Players who are trying to make money with crafting are bogging the game down with pointless, boring minutia.

Honestly, I’ve never once encountered a player who wanted to use the crafting skill as a means of making money. But personal experience is only anecdotal evidence, and I’m sure such people exist. And wherever they are, I’d like to tell them to stop being stupid.

If your players are actually trying to turn D&D into a manufacturing business simulator, then you can slap them with my blessing. Just once though.

Allowing players to create items unbalances, and reduces the importance of finding treasure.

This is an entirely legitimate concern. If crafting allows players to gain access to items too easily, then the entire dynamic of challenge/reward which is at the game’s very core could be upended. Fortunately, a solidly build crafting systems can avoid this pitfall in a number of ways:

  • Crafting is a huge money sink. Players will need to adventure for a long time in order to afford the materials for their fancy magic sword.
  • Each individual crafting skill is limited in its range. A fighter can be an armorsmith, so they can make plate or chain armor for themselves and their allies. But they can’t make weapons, nor can they make leather armor for the rogue, nor can they make magic rings, nor any of the other things adventurers need.
  • Make crafting at least partially dependent on treasure. In the next treasure hoard, the players find schematics for a marvelous weapons. If they are not craftspeople themselves, they can commission the sword from a sufficiently talented NPC.

I think that just about covers the arguments I read on the subject. I hope everyone feels that their views were represented fairly, and that my responses were soundly reasoned. After thinking about these arguments, I can see why someone would want to exclude crafting as an option from their games; even though I have no interest in doing that. I still think crafting is pretty fucken’ awesome!

Pathfinder Class Analysis 3: Cleric

Core Concept: It would be difficult to argue that the cleric doesn’t have a place in a game descended from D&D. Even if you go all the way back to the beginning, to the three little brown books which started it all, the cleric was there. When the thief class was naught but a gleam in Gygax’ eye, the cleric was one of only three classes available, along with the fighting man and the magic user. It’s hard to have a better gaming pedigree than ‘has existed as long as the game.’

That’s not to say that the cleric is necessary. Of the three original classes, the cleric is easily the least memorable. In a game about fantasy adventures, you need the person who swings the sword, so you can’t get rid of fighting men (or women. But we can cut Gygax some slack on that, as he was raised in olden times).  And when I think of characters in fantasy who wield magic, my first thought is of wizards, not religious types. Even thieves, introduced in a supplement though they were, are more distinct and memorable than clerics are.

I’m not advocating we be rid of clerics. I like them just fine. But of the 4 most fundamental classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard), cleric is the one which needs the most work. I’m not sure what that work would entail, and figuring out what needs to be done is beyond the scope of this post. But were I to make an iteration of D&D, I think that game would feature much more distinct clerics.

Aura: This hardly counts as a class feature, really. Clerics of a god have a strong aura of that god’s alignment, which is, ostensibly, the cleric’s alignment as well. Though not necessarily, I suppose. This doesn’t seem very important to mention, but since it’s here I suppose I’ll give it my approval.

Spells: Pathfinder uses a single spellcasting system which remains consistent for each class, with only minor modifications. This has some important benefits, such as making the game as a whole easier to understand. It provides continuity between different classes, and prevents players from needing to spend excessive time learning new mechanics.

That said, I would rather see the game incorporate multiple types of spellcasting. Let the wizards keep vancian magic. It’s better suited to them anyway. Clerics, I think, should have an entirely different kind of magic.

Perhaps instead of a lengthy spell list which clerics prepare from each day, they could have a much more limited spell list. Only 1-3 new spells per level. And most of the spells have a much longer cast time, enough so that they can’t be used in combat. “Cure Light Wounds” is a 10 minute ritual spell which requires a lot of praying (and perhaps a random encounter check while the rest of the party stands guard over their injured companion).

In combat, clerics would have a number of spells which focus primarily on bestowing small blessings or curses. Each of these would have a short enough duration to keep the cleric on their toes. On the first round of combat they give the fighter a +1 to her attack rolls. On the next round, they run over to shield the magic user from incoming arrows–which leaves the fighter without their attack bonus.

In exchange for the reduced effectiveness of their spell list, clerics would be able to cast any of their spells at any time. No memorization, no limits. An instrument of the gods will does not tire! (I suppose some limitation might be called for to prevent over use of healing. Perhaps magical healing causes grogginess, causing a cumulative penalty on some of the player’s rolls for a few hours? I’m just tossing ideas out here.)

Channeled Energy: I’ve always thought turn undead was kind of a dumb ability. Why should clerics, alone among all the classes, have a primary ability which only works against a certain type of enemy? In most campaigns it’s alright, because undead are a relatively common type of foe. But what if the GM doesn’t want them to be? When playing most versions of D&D, I can’t simply decide to run a campaign with no undead in it, because that would severely gimp the clerical class.

Replacing turn undead with channeled energy is one of Pathfinder’s best innovations. It’s simple to understand (Cha + 3 times per day I can pump out xd6 of either positive or negative energy into a 30ft radius. Simple!), and is fits within the flavor of the clerical class. I also like how feats can be used to focus the channeled energy in different ways–such as into an optional ‘turn undead’ ability.

Domains: I never liked domains in 3.5, and I like them only slightly more in Pathfinder. They’re just too fiddly, with too little reward. Who really needs +1 spell slot each level which can only be filled with a domain spell? It just seems like a needless complication to me. I will say that domain powers are pretty cool, though. I like the idea that clerics will have different powers, based on the god they worship. But perhaps instead of domains, these different powers could simply be granted to the cleric directly from the god the cleric worships? This would have a twofold benefit: it would reduce the number of decisions a player needs to make (which god, then which of those god’s domains to pick from). It would also make the cleric’s actual religion much more important to gameplay, which is good. Too many players would just as soon be “generic cleric of vaguely [blank] alignment,” which doesn’t work for me at all.

Orsions: I see what they were trying to do here. The thinking is that magic using classes need to use magic, ergo it is bad if those magic using classes are in a situation where they have no magic to use. But they’re wrong, because running out of magic is part of the fun of being a magic using class. Managing your resources so that you don’t run out of spells at an inopportune time, as well as figuring out what to do when poor planning means you run out anyway, is part of the challenge of playing a magic user.

Of course, level 0 spells are pretty minimal in power, so clerics will still want to manage their spellcasting resource. All the same, I’d prefer to play a game where being out of magic for the day actually meant you were completely out of magic for the day.

Spontaneous Casting: Channeled Energy makes this ability redundant. As such, it only serves to confuse the game by introducing meaningless options. It ought to be removed.

Designing a Pathfinder Skill

I’ve long intended to redesign the Craft and Knowledge skills from the ground up. I’ve even taken a shot at it a few times in the past. I’ve got a completed, but unpublished post from mid Summer where I went on a rather vitriolic rant about the failings of the skills system, based on one of those unsuccessful attempts. Regardless of the system’s failings, though, I do think that both of these skills are beneficial to the game and could be improved from their RAW state without fundamentally changing the way the skills system works. So with some new ideas in hand, I’d like to give it another try. This time moving more slowly, and “showing my work.”

It seems logical to me that any skill must be created with at least two different types of characters in mind. The Moderately Invested Character, and the Focused Character.

The focused character is one who has made this skill their top priority. Whether the skill is a crafting or knowledge skill, or any other skill for that matter, this character is determined to be the best at what they do. Through luck or point-buy, they start the game with an 18 in the associated ability score, and they select a race which grants them a +2 bonus to that ability score. Every four levels, they improve that ability score by 1 point, culminating in a +6 modifier at level 8, and a +7 modifier at level 16. The focused character also takes Skill Focus at first level. And, obviously, this character has selected a class for which this skill is a class skill, and places new points into the skill at each level.

Now, it wouldn’t be hard to take this further. Their are races with better than a +2 ability score bonus. There are magical items and spells which–temporarily or permanently–increase a character’s ability scores. Some races receive bonuses for specific skills, such as the gnomish +2 racial bonus to craft. Often, masterwork tools give characters a functionally permanent circumstance bonus to their checks. There are even magical items which increase competency with a skill, though in my opinion these should be almost entirely ruled out of the game for reasons which will become obvious in a moment.

If a person really wanted to max out their skill, and the GM was willing to humor them, then I think the skills system is so fundamentally, mathematically flawed that it would be impossible to create a well balanced skill. But when attempting to craft these skills, I will assume that the players are not quite so obsessive, and the GM is not so foolish to indulge them if they are.

The other type of character which the system must be balanced for, the Moderately Invested Character, is much simpler. They do not make this skill a priority, but it is a class skill, and they do put skill points into it at each level. Their associated ability score is a +2, which is above average, but not great. That, I think, is a sufficient level of involvement that a player should expect to see solid, level appropriate returns on their decision to invest in this skill, whatever it may be.

For all of these characters; the focused, the moderately invested, and every character who falls between; the skill ought to work ‘right.’ Certainly, within this gradation, there will be players who are more or less skilled than others. That’s fine, and in fact it is one of the benefits of the Pathfinder skills system. However, a moderately invested character should never feel as though the skill isn’t useful to them, nor should a focused character receive such significant rewards that they become overpowered. Players with less skill than a moderately invested character can be legitimately viewed as handicapped in the skill, and should not expect full at-level rewards from it. And characters with greater skill than a focused character can be considered overpowered already.

So how do the numbers work out?

Not great.

At first level, there’s already a variance of 6 between the moderately invested and the focused characters. By level 20 that variance has widened to 11. Those may not sound like very large numbers, but notice that a 10th level focused character has reached the same level of expertise that a 20th level moderately invested character can.

Forging ahead, now that we know which ranges the two character types will have available to them at each level, the question becomes: what acts should a character be able to perform at a given level? For example, according to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, +1 swords cost 2,000 gold pieces. They’re also available for sale in large cities, so in the assumed Pathfinder campaign setting, +1 swords should be available to a character who has sufficient gold. According to the wealth by level guidelines, a level 4 character should have 6,000 gold, so I think it’s safe to say that a character is meant to have +1 weapons by level 4. If characters are to be able to craft magic items using the crafting system (as is my goal), then what should be the DC of crafting a +1 sword? 25? That gives the moderately invested character a 25% chance of success at level 4, and the focused character a 40% chance of success at level 1.

Clearly an additional layer of complexity is required here. Materials cost will obviously help limit this crafting, but it’s important to me that I avoid requiring feats in this system.

Further work on my part is required, but at this juncture I’m eager to hear what others think. Perhaps one of my betters can save me some time?

In Defense of Experience Points

Recently, I found myself perusing a thread on the Paizo forums. It’s not something I make a habit of, but I noticed they were sending me some traffic, so I thought I’d take a look to see why. The thread was addressing the issue of experience points, and asked the question: are they necessary for a good game? In the course of the discussion, my old Simple Experience Points piece was shared by a poster named Azaelas Fayth, which is pretty cool.

Scanning the thread, I was surprised to note that many, if not most of the responses replied in the negative. A large group of Pathfinder players seem to prefer running games without experience points. Instead, characters are granted levels either ‘every few sessions,’ or at story appropriate moments. I find this particularly interesting, because it’s what I did for such a long time, and I was never satisfied with it. In fact it was that very dissatisfaction which made me so excited when I encountered Paul’s simple experience points system, and drove me to adapt it for Pathfinder. To quote myself:

“Almost every game I’ve run as a GM has used a kind of ad hoc experience distribution system. I look up how many experience points are needed for the characters to reach the next level, and I give them whatever percentage of that number which I feel like they’ve earned. Most of the time I base that percentage on what speed of progression is optimal to keep the players in-step with events in my game world, rather than basing it off of challenges they have overcome.
At best, the method I’ve been using make experience points redundant. At worst, my method reduces player agency. It’s an arrangement I’ve never been happy with” -Me, 10/22/11

Some of the posters in this thread even went so far as to assert that experience points are an outmoded concept, kept alive by misguided tradition rather than actual usefulness. And, in fairness to that viewpoint, it’s not entirely wrong in this case. Pathfinder removed the experience point cost from all spells and rituals, and in doing so, removed the very last reason why experience point totals need to be so large. Calculating those large numbers is time consuming and frustrating, even with the improvements Pathfinder made to how experience points are calculated.

But is completely removing experience points from the game really the best solution?

To be fair once again, my impression from reading the thread is that most of those participating could be classified as “story gamers.” So my viewpoint may not be very relevant to the kind of game they’re trying to run. I’m not sure why a story gamer would choose a mechanically heavy system like Pathfinder to play with, but who am I to judge? I play oldschool, high-mortality games with Pathfinder. If anyone is the odd ball out, it’s me.

I’ve come to the understanding that in a role playing game, the means by which characters gain new levels, defines the game’s goal. The players are free to do as they choose in the game world, but they will not achieve greater status and power until they direct their attention towards whatever actions will help them level up. In most games, reaching a new level is a big step. One which takes a significant investment of time, to properly offset the significant boost in power and status the character will receive.

Once a player has set their sights on a goal, they may become frustrated if they cannot see progress towards that goal. I would consider this to be reasonable behavior, particularly in games where gaining a new level can require months of weekly game sessions to accomplish. As such, it is helpful if the player can more easily acquire a tangible ‘piece’ of a new level, and over time, watch those pieces accumulate, as they grow ever closer to the number of pieces required to reach a new level. In Pathfinder, those pieces are called experience points, and they are received primarily by slaying monsters. Thus monster slaying could be said to be the point of the game.

Interestingly, though, there’s nothing stopping a GM from redefining the goal of the game, and breaking each level into different sized pieces. To demonstrate what I mean, here are three examples of three completely different experience point systems, all of which I’ve used:

  1. In my ToKiMo Pathfinder campaign, I reward players for overcoming challenges. Any challenge will do. Defeating monsters is one type of challenge my players enjoy. But they also enjoy the challenge of avoiding traps, or talking their way out of a tight spot. Both of those challenges also give experience points, and they do so at the same rate as combat. I also require only 30 experience points for each level in that game, and award either 1, 2, or 3 xp per challenge, depending on how difficult I determine it to be beforehand. As an added bonus, choosing a number between 1 and 3 is a lot easier than calculated thousands, or hundreds of thousands of XP. I can easily grant XP to my players immediately after the challenge is overcome, rather than waiting until after the session to do so.
  2. In my Dungeons & Dragons & Little Brothers OD&D campaign, the point of the game is to find and recover treasure. To facilitate that, players gain 1 experience point for each 1 gold piece they spend. The effect this system has had on the game has been amazing! Players are always happy to find treasure, but I’ve never seen players so happy as they are in this game, where every silver candlestick or ancient vase brings them one step closer to their next level. Of all the experience point systems I’ve ever used, I think this is easily the most fun. Plus, it’s utterly simple, since I don’t need to do anything. All I do is tell the players how much gold they find, and they do the rest!
  3. In my as yet unfinished Legend of Zelda Adventure System, there is no experience points, nor any other ‘piece’ of a level for players to collect. It a character wants to advance, they must seek out and destroy a great monster. If they can accomplish this feat, they immediately advance to the next level. Like the GP for XP idea, this requires no real work on the GM’s part.

As you can see, each of these three has a unique goal, and a unique ‘piece’ size. (Overcome challenges, recover gold, defeat great monsters / 30, thousands, and 1 respectively). When you and your group sit down to play a new game, it might be interesting to briefly ask: what do we want the goal of the game to be, and how can we represent that?

Pathfinder Class Analysis 2: Bard

Core Concept: It is a commonly held belief that bards are ridiculous. Even if made to be mechanically useful, it seems strange to some people that a busker would stand along side a master of arms or a powerful wizard. But in fact, the bard class has strong historical roots. Traveling minstrels existed, seeking out larger and more impressive stories to sing for lords and ladies, hoping to find a noble who would retain their services for awhile. And when work was slow, a traveling bard was apt to pick pockets or take up banditry until they could make enough coin to move on. If any class has the right to be an adventurer, it’s the bard.

Spells: The spells chosen for the bard are flavorful. I also approve of the fact that a bard must perform in order to cast their spells. I further think bards should have a touch of magic about them, so access to spells is appropriate. But only a touch of magic, mind you. More than any other class, I think bards should resemble rogues, but that’s not the case in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, bards are basically mini-sorcerers. That doesn’t work for me.

Additionally, I find it a little distasteful that seven out of the eleven basic classes eventually gain access to a spell list they can cast from. Not only does it reduce the specialness of the casting classes, but it hints at a game which relies too heavily on magic to bring it into balance.

I think it would be best if spells were dropped entirely from the bard class. In their place, bards should gain the ability to the use of magical scrolls–arcane or divine. This allows the class to be a little bit magical, without giving them the innate access to magic which would dilute the caster classes. Most of the bard-only spells (such as Summon Instrument) could be kept as special abilities rather than spells.

Adding scrolls and special abilities doesn’t come close to making up for the loss of spells, though. The rest of that loss should be made up for in the performance ability, covered below.

Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master: My feelings are conflicted with regards to these two abilities, which is really just because by feelings are conflicted with regards to knowledge skills in general. But if the game is to have a knowledge skill, then these are interesting abilities, which make good sense. So I’ve no real qualms with them.

Performance:  Performance is the bard’s most important ability, and of all of the abilities of all the classes, I think it just might be the one I like the least. Were I so inclined, I would completely rebuild the bard class from the ground up just to correct the many problems I have with performance. But right now I’m just pointing out things I don’t like, and brain storming thoughts on how they might be improved, so I’ll stick to that mission for now.

First, why is there a limit to the number of rounds per day a bard can perform? I have a difficult time wrapping my head around a minstrel who can only play for 48 seconds before becoming too exhausted to perform anymore throughout the day. I understand that this could be explained by saying that magical performances are a great deal more draining and can only be maintained for a short period of time, but I don’t really buy it. Wouldn’t it be better to design a performance ability which the bard could use for a longer amount of time? There’s no reason to make performance function identically to a barbarian’s rage or a cleric’s channeling ability.

Which brings me to an important point: standardization is not always good. There are many good things about creating standards. They help everyone communicate better, and specifically in the case of tabletop RPGs, they aide greatly in helping a GM remember and improvise the rules. Standardization is one of the great improvements I think we can ascribe to D&D 3rd edition. But it can be taken too far. Too often in D&D 3.x/Pathfinder, characters gain abilities which “function as the spell,” sometimes with minor adjustments. A number of the bardic performance abilities mimic spells in this manner, and it bugs me. A wizard wakes up each morning with nearly limitless options for which magical effects they will produce that day. Why should the wizard be just as good as the bard is when it comes to swaying a crowd? Should not the wizard’s limitless choices be countered by more specialized classes being able to do their jobs better than wizards can? A lot better?

Much like rage, Performance ought to be a much more dramatically powerful ability. In an ideal game, I think bards would need to seek out new songs and stories to enhance their performance abilities. When the character began their performance, they would not need to stop and start again to produce a different effect, but would instead be able to weave effects together into a single, moving performance. And those effects wouldn’t allow the bard to influence a person for 1 hour per level. It would make that person into a lifelong fan.

Obviously it’s very simple to make bold statements about how something ought to work, and it’s a very different thing to actually make it work that way. This is just what I think would make the class compelling.

Cantrips: Since this is the same for every class with the ability to cast spells, I’d rather hold off on discussing it until a primary caster, such as the cleric.

Versatile Performance: This ability really highlights the problems of the skill system. Lets say your character is an actor. Their profession, and indeed, many of their class abilities rely on changing their appearances, and convincing others that they believe in the fictional reality of the play. It would seem to follow that such characters would be good at disguises, and lying, would it not? But no! Not in D&D! In the game, players must wait until second level before they can apply their acting abilities towards other pursuits.

Obviously level 2 isn’t a very long wait, but the fact that this ability had to be included at all is just…sad.

Well-Versed: …meh. This is a filler ability. There’s really nothing much to say about it, save for the fact that it adds clutter-notes to the character sheet. Where in the world are you supposed to write “+4 on saving throws v. Bardic Performance effects.”

Jack-of-All-Trades: While you might not expect it given my feelings towards skills, I like this ability. It makes sense, it’s flavorful, and it’s not bad mechanics insofar as skills go. If I were to completely re-design Pathfinder’s skills system, I would likely keep this ability in a different form. Perhaps they would never have to roll in the Untrained – Difficult column?

Checking for Traps is Bullshit

Earlier this evening, I was GMing a game of my D&D&LB campaign. The game consisted of the players trying to escape from a tower where they had been imprisoned. This was the third session of them working to escape this tower, and I’ve been happy with their performance. They’ve had a few slipups and bad judgement calls, have lost all of their hirelings and a PC, but have nevertheless held it together and survived with barely any time to rest or recover their health or spells. I’ve been hard on them, and they’ve succeeded despite that.

Halfway through this session, they entered a room with three chests in it. Eager to be on their way, but unable to pass up this tantalizing prize, they decided to loot the chests. One of the players stood guard while the magic user tested the lid of each chest with a sword. All were locked. The MU (our newest player), then asked if he could test for traps with the sword. I replied that he could poke around, but that many lock traps were activated by the tumblers within the lock, so the sword would be too big to test for those. With no other recourse, the rogue stepped up. She checked for traps, and I rolled to see if she found any, because I don’t like the players to know if they rolled high or low for this kind of thing. She rolled very low, and in turn, I told her that there were no traps she could detect. She then told me that she was putting on a pair of leather gloves, and would then like to pick the lock.

At this point it fell to me to inform her that a poison needle shot out of the locking mechanism, and injected her with a 4d6 Intelligence draining poison. Since the party was trapped in this tower, with dozens of bandits between them and a half-day’s march into town, it was time for her to make a save versus poison, or face nearly certain death.

But I couldn’t do that to her.

One of the most important philosophies I’ve taken from my reading in the OSR, is that players should be able to avoid death through intelligent play. That saving throws should only be called for if the player has made a mistake. But as far as I can see, this player didn’t make any mistakes. She did everything right, tested everything thoroughly, even put on an ineffectual pair of gloves for extra protection, and now I was supposed to kill her for it. Had I gone through with it, I think that player would have been fully justified in being angry. I think she would have been right to believe that her choices had not meaningfully affected whether her character lived or died, which is the grossest violation of player agency in my view.

It could be argued, of course, that before opening any chests, an intelligent player would have antitoxins on hand. An even more intelligent player would make sure someone else was always the one to open chests. The most intelligent player is the one who never leaves the starting town, and becomes rich through economic prowess. If the game is about adventure, it seems counter productive to create an environment where players can never feel safe opening the next door, or looting the next chest.

I was silent for a good 30 seconds while I pondered this, and my players stared at me with trepidation. Finally I said “Here’s the deal, guys. There is a needle trap on this lock. You rolled too low to find it. The poison on it would almost certainly kill you. But you guys did everything you could to be careful, so I’m not going to do that to you. Instead, for the rest of this session, if the rogue checks for traps, I’ll just tell you if there are traps or not. By next session I’ll figure out a more permanent trap-checking mechanic for us to use.”

And that’s where I’m at right now. I’ve decided I don’t like rolling for trap checks, but can’t figure out how better to approach the task. Any thoughts?

Also, this is relevant.

Pathfinder Class Analysis 1: Barbarian

Core Concept: While they’re not a class I’ve personally ever wanted to play, I think barbarians have a legitimate niche within fantasy adventures. Fighters are soldiers with expertly honed weapons skills and knowledge of military tactics. The fighter class can’t represent the brute ferocity of the wild-man. If you are to imagine the battles between Rome and Gaul, it would be hard name meaningful similarities between the warriors on the two sides. What I’m a little less fond of is the rage mechanic which is part-in-parcel of every barbarian class. I don’t actively dislike rage mechanics, they’re flavorful and they work fine. I just don’t think it’s such a perfect fit for the barbarian concept that it deserves to be ubiquitous.

As an example, I once made a class called the Whirling Berserker which received  a bonus to attack rolls so long as she attacked a different target on each turn. As such, the character would be most effective if she moved through a battle, attacking everyone she passed, rather than engaging with a single opponent.

So while I think the concept deserves some more creative thinking than it normally gets, I none the less approve of the class’s inclusion in the Pathfinder RPG.

Fast Movement:Movement speed is important to grid based combat. And while I don’t like to be forced to use a grid, I certainly like to have it as an option. The potential problem of Fast Movement is that it does tie a group down to using a grid, because if a grid is not used, then the barbarian player’s class is functionally gimped. That being said, I have GMed for several barbarians, and none of them have complained yet during the battles where I choose to run things grid-less.

That’s really a minor issue however, as Pathfinder combat is intended to be run with a grid. And when using a grid, the rate of movement has some very interesting effects on combat. If anything, I’d like to see more movement speed bonuses and penalties in the game.

Rage: I’ve already mentioned that I don’t think rage mechanics deserve to be ubiquitous, but it’s here, so lets talk about how it’s implemented.

Honestly I’d rather see rage be more dramatically powerful, but come with more significant drawbacks. As it stands, Rage is certainly…’balanced.’ It’s a boon to the class which allows them to be competitive in combat. But that’s a metric which I believe to be overrated. Not entirely without value, mind you, but certainly overrated. I won’t go into that now, but I recommend Brendan of Untimately’s thoughts on the matter.

Instead of a small bonuses and penalties, I want to see Barbarians hurl stones that weigh as much as they do–but I also want them to have a possibility to attack their fellows, or flee from a flashy magical effect. I haven’t thought out how this might be implemented, but I’d enjoy it a lot more than a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution. Snore.

Rage Powers: Despite myself, I love rage powers. They overcomplicate the class, confuse new players, and encourage veteran players to concentrate on their character’s ‘build,’ rather than improvement through play. But all of that aside, I think Rage Powers are awesome. They’re elegantly flavorful, and lend the rage ability the type of drama I was lamenting the lack of above.

Consider that when enraged, a character could gain the ability to see in the dark, or run twice as fast, or deflect swords with the sheer bulginess of their muscles. It is fun, and awesome. And–better yet–most every one of the rage powers presented in the core rulebook avoid my problem with feats. They’re mostly improvements to stuff the character could already attempt, or legitimately new abilities, rather than agency-damaging game options.

Though I do love them, I think Rage Powers might benefit from being made much more powerful, and acquired much more slowly.

Improved / Uncanny Dodge: There’s not a lot to say about this pair of abilities. They might be seen as complications, but at least they’re not minor, fiddly ones. The inability to be caught flat footed, or the inability to be flanked, change a lot about how combat will work. The pair works well with barbarian flavor–particularly if you consider my alternative to ‘rage’ noted above–so no complaints on that front either.

Trap Sense: This, on the other hand, is a minor fiddly complication; and not one which fits particularly well with Barbarian flavor. I’ve always hated Trap Sense, even for rogues. Perhaps it might carry more weight if traps were deadlier in Pathfinder. (Of course, traps are plenty deadly in my games. But not in Pathfinder raw.)

Damage Reduction: I think damage reduction is a really elegant mechanic, and one of the best innovations of D&D 3rd edition.* I think it’s also a good fit for the Barbarian, since they’re so ferocious and battle scarred that minor blows have completely ceased to phase them.

Greater / Mighty Rage: While I’m okay with rage as a barbarian ability, I do not like these kinds of rage ‘upgrades.’ I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, but it makes the character’s progression seem stilted. I would much rather see rage improve organically. So instead of +4 strength at level 1, +6 at level 11, and +8 at level 20; rage could simply give characters a 25% increase in strength. As the character’s strength improved, so would the strength bonus they received when they raged.

As an alternative, all improvements to rage could come in the form of something similar to rage powers.

Indomitable Will: I can’t help but feel this ought to just be a rage power. Maybe it was deemed to be out of balance with other rage power options, but as I mentioned, I think rage powers ought to have a more dramatic effect anyway.

Tireless Rage: I’ve decided I’m too tired and apathetic to write what I think about Tireless Rage. Instead, just go up and read what I think about Indomitable Will, because my thoughts on that ability are literally identical to my thoughts on Tireless Rage. I seriously considered copy-pasting it.

*Please forgive me, and correct me, if I’m missing a piece of gaming history here.

Feat Slot System for Pathfinder

In a recent post I covered why I think feats are awesome, despite the significant problems with how they’ve been implemented in Pathfinder. In that post I also posited a couple of alternate systems which would avoid the flaws which D&D 3.X fell prey to. I quite liked some of the ideas I came up with, and based on feedback, so did many others. It seems as though this system would benefit from some further development. Below I’ve tailored the idea specifically to fit within the Pathfinder rules, since that is my primary system right now. However, I stand by the idea that the system could easily be adapted to work in just about any game. I’d be particularly interested to see how it would work in a retroclone compatible RPG.

The Feat Slot system would replace Pathfinder’s feats system. This might break a few minor rules, but none of it should be a significant impediment to the game. The only thing which comes to mind immediately is that Humans would lose one of their primary racial benefits. To compensate, humans will gain a feat slot at first level, while most races will not gain any until second level. In addition, when using this system I think it’s best (though, not necessary) to also remove the ability point which players gain every four levels. Feat Slots should be a net increase in player power, and remove the ability point will help mitigate that.

The rule itself is simple. At second level, and each level after that, characters gain a ‘Feat Slot.’ These slots start out empty, and they cannot be filled by the player. Instead, feats are determined by the GM in response to the character’s actions. The GM is under no obligation to fill these slots immediately, and is encouraged to wait until a feat has been properly ‘earned.’ Once a feat slot has been filled by the GM, it cannot be changed, and a character can never have more feats than they have feat slots available.

There are two ways in which feats can be earned. Individual GMs may develop their own criteria, though they are encouraged to avoid letting feats become part of a ‘build.’ One of the strengths of this system is that feats must be earned through play.

The first method of earning feats is for the character to spend time training with a specific task. The player and the GM should discuss what kind of training the player is doing, how they are facilitating that training (equipment, manuals, trainers…), and how long they intend to train for. 2 weeks is a good baseline, assuming that the character is not also spending that time in other tasks such as crafting magic items. Once the period of training is complete, the GM can grant the player a feat related to their training.

This method has a number of cool benefits. First, it doesn’t require a ton of attention or involvement from the GM. It also gives the players some sense of control over how their character develops, while still encouraging diegetic thinking. The player is not improving their character by finding a build online, or flipping through a sourcebook to find something which works for their character concept. They are taking actions within the game world, and gaining benefits based on those actions. This method also promotes a game where players need to manage time along with their other resources, which I like doing.

For the second method, the GM should take notes on the characters’ actions during game sessions. Specifically, the GM should record anything which a player attempts consistently, or which a player is particularly successful with. If, for example, George attempts a bull rush at the beginning of every combat, or Lindsay attempts something crazy and miraculously succeeds at it, then that should be noted down. When a feat slot becomes available (or immediately, if one already is available) the GM can award the player a feat based on those actions.

While the first method seems more strictly logical, I love how the second method allows character improvement to arise directly from play. In the past, I’ve rewarded players who succeed spectacularly at a given task by given them a permanent bonus to future attempts at the same task. In those cases it was an ad hoc ruling, but everyone enjoyed it, and I think it could function well in a more formalized system. The downside to the second method are that it requires a lot more of the GM’s attention. Players also have less involvement in deciding how their character progresses, but that can be viewed as a good or a bad thing.

The two methods are interchangeable, and no group is bound to use one method for all players, nor even to use one method for a single player. If the group is fine mixing and matching to fit their taste, then there should be no problem with that.

I still haven’t covered what the feats of this system would actually look like. By necessity, many or even most of them will need to be invented by the GM, and specifically tailored to what the player has done to earn the feat. As a general rule, feats should always make a character better at doing something they already had at least a chance to succeed at. (For detailed examples of this, read my original post on feats  from November 2011). Balance between feats is something which the GM should be aware of, but not something they should stress over. In the worst case scenario where a feat is allowing one player to dominate the game, a reasonable player will be amenable to having the feat nerfed. If that is not an option, the GM can always opt to reduce the power of that player’s feats in the future, and increase the power of the other player’s feats, until everyone is on somewhat even footing once again. If balance between party members is a major concern for you (though, in my mind, it should not be), then use the core rulebook’s feats as a guide.

To further clarify how this system would function, I’ll run through some examples.

1. Noelle the rogue is extremely fond of fighting with the rapier. She has a feat slot available, and asks the GM if she can devote extra time to training with that particular weapon. The GM tells her that a trainer is available in town who will work with her for 300gp per week, and Noelle agrees. After two weeks of training, Noelle’s purse is 600gp lighter, but the GM grants her the Weapon Focus (Rapier) feat. (+1 to attack rolls with rapier). After reaching her next level, Noelle asks the GM if she can spend still more time training with her rapier. The GM agrees, but since the party has been exploring the wilderness lately, no trainers are available. Noelle instead describes how she stuffs some old clothes with hay, and practices her point accuracy, and delivering solid blows. It takes her 3 weeks of intense training, but Noelle is given the Weapon Specialization (Rapier) feat in exchange. (+2 to damage rolls with rapier).

2. Amber’s fighter stays on point whenever the party is delving into a dungeon. They don’t have a rogue, which means it’s usually Amber’s job to find traps. And by ‘find,’ I mean ‘absorb with her large pool of hit points.’ The GM notices that Amber gets hit with a lot of traps, and determines that she may be developing a better sense of how to spot and avoid them. The GM grants her the Trap Sense Rogue ability, as described on page 69 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It allows Amber to add 1/3rd of her level as a bonus to reflex saves and Armor Class against traps.

3. Hyde is a goodly wizard who is frustrated with undead creatures. The next time his party finds a large group of undead, Hyde captures a few dozen zombies, and takes them back to his magical laboratory. He tells the GM he would like to experiment on the undead creatures to see if he can make his spells more effective against them. The GM agrees, and Hyde spends 2 weeks cutting undead open, casting spells upon them, and doing everything he can to learn about this foe. When his research comes to a close, the GM informs Hyde that spells which can normally only be cast on living creatures can now (within reason) be cast on undead creatures as well. When casting a spell like that on an undead creature, however, Hyde must prepare the spell in a spell slot at least 1 level higher than the minimum required.

4. When one of her allies drops below 0 HP in a pitched battle, Jennifer the barbarian leaps forward to defend her fallen companion. The monster attacking her companion is fierce, but Jennifer bravely attacks it anyway, and rolls two twenties! One for each of the attacks she’s allowed to make this round. The extremely effective attack turns the tide of the battle, and saves the party. The GM notes that Jennifer still has a feat slot available, and grants her a permanent +4 to her attack rolls when any of her allies are at, or below, 0HP.

While it has not yet been playtested, I think the Feat Slot system has real potential. I’d be very interested to know what others think!

The Awesome Thing about Feats

Over a year ago I wrote a post called The Problem with Feats. It was the first piece of my tabletop writing which got much attention, thanks to Courtney of Hack & Slash. In many ways that post represents a significant shift in my thinking about game mechanics, and serves as a signpost for how I developed over the following year. Even though I would probably write it differently now, it stands among my favorite posts from those first few tentative months of writing. But as I mentioned in that post, I don’t hate feats. I was, and am, highly critical of the way feats have been implemented in the various iterations of D&D 3.X, but I hold that the concept is sound. Feats bring a lot more to the table than increased complication and power creep.

The most obvious benefit of feats is that they allow for greater mechanical character customization. I will not argue that player options aren’t highly overvalued in D&D 3.X, because they are. The overwhelming bloat of these customization options becomes particularly apparent when you notice that players are often using ‘builds’ they found online, because the number of options available is too great for most players to reasonably grasp them. But it would be fallacious to assume that just because something is overvalued, that means it has no value at all. Simplicity is good, but it should not be the ultimate goal of a game. The ultimate goal of a game should be to facilitate fun. And people have fun when they can personalize their stuff. That’s why people decorate their cubicle, or put knick knacks on the dashboard of their car. Personalization is important to us.

Maybe it’s presumptuous of me, but I can already hear the response to that statement from my OSR-leaning readers: “But LS, you sexy pile of fat folds” they will cry out in unison. “Customization is achieved through play! It’s about the goals you pursue, the loot you find, and the stronghold you build!”

To which I respond: yes. You are correct. But feats offer a level of personalization to players which none of those elements can match. Because gold can be stolen, and magic items can be destroyed. Friendly NPCs can be killed, conquered towns can be burned to the ground, and even the mightiest castle can be razed. But so long as the player’s character lives, a feat can never be taken away from them. There’s something to be said for an inherent ability. One which you cannot lose any more than you could lose your racial or class abilities.

That’s why I love feats. At least, I love them in theory. But theory’s just half of the equation. The other half is finding a way to implement feats in practice. A way which highlights the strength of this kind of player option while avoiding the common pitfalls which can reduce player agency by placing arbitrary limits on what players are allowed to attempt. It must also avoid complicating the game by introducing endless lists of possible feats to be combed through and analyzed by players who ought to be playing. What I wrote a year ago still rings true to me. A good feat is one which makes a character better at something they can already attempt. In Pathfinder, many of the combat maneuver feats are examples of how feats should be designed. Improved Trip, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Sunder, etc. Anybody can attempt to disarm their opponent, but someone who has the Improved Disarm feat have learned how to keep their guard up when they do it, so they don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. Their enhanced disarming skill also grants them a +2 to disarm attempts, and to defending against disarm attempts.

Ultimately, I would like to see the endless list of feats which fill the pages of every new rulebook replaced with a comprehensive system for creating feats. Something which players and GMs could work out together. Perhaps a sliding scale where the bonuses granted by a feat can be more powerful, the more specific of a situation that feat could be used in. As a simple example, characters could take a feat which gave them a +1 to attack rolls when using axes, +2 to attack rolls when fighting undead, or +4 to attack rolls when fighting vampires. Since “using axes” is very general and could potentially be applied to every attack roll the character ever makes, it receives a very small bonus of only +1. Undead aren’t going to be part of every combat, though, so a feat which only works against them won’t come into play quite as often. Since its use would be less frequent, the bonus can be higher. And vampires are just a more extreme example of that. Fighting vampires is likely to be very uncommon in a standard campaign, so the bonus to fighting them can be quite large.

I don’t mean to imply that the above system should be implemented, mind you. In order to be made workable, such a system would require a lot of mathematical tinkering, and a lot more thought than I’ve given it. That’s just a suggestion for how the current Pathfinder feat system might be modified and replaced to avoid the problem with feats which I described in my earlier post.

A more workable, and dare I say, retroclone compatible feat system would be as follows:

At each level after first, a character gains one feat slot. This slot confers no immediate advantage, and players are not able to select a feat to fill the slot themselves. For the time being, they should simply indicate that a feat slot is available, and it will remain available until it is filled. During play, if a character with an open feat slot excels with a certain type of action or style of play, the GM can reward the player by granting them a feat to represent & enhance that excellence.

Excellence can be demonstrated a number of ways. Players showing preference for a specific tactic is the most obvious choice. For example, a character who frequently throws flasks of lantern oil might be granted a feat which gives them +1 to throwing grenade-like projectiles. Other ways to demonstrate excellence would be for the character to devote a certain amount of in-game time to training. In this way, players could more directly choose their feats. By finding a vampire hunter and training under her for 3 weeks, a thief might be given a feat which allows their backstab attack to function against vampires. GMs could also reward game-changing rolls with a feat. I once wrote a post describing how a level 1 goblin successfully defeated a much higher level monster by making an excellent roll to throw a bomb into the creature’s mouth. From then on we allowed that particular goblin to add a +4 anytime they wanted to throw an item into a small space, and that’s a perfect example of how this feat system could work.

One might argue that this undermines the virtue of customization which I espoused earlier in this post, but it does not. At least, not necessarily. First, most of the methods for receiving feats are dictated first by the player’s actions. The GM merely interprets how those actions should be rewarded. Second, even if the player is not making the decision directly of which feats they would like to have, their character still becomes progressively more unique. The character evolves not only according to their class, but also according to the adventures they’ve had, and the way they’ve lived their life. That seems like an excellent supplement to traditional class-based progression in my view.