Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ranger_reg Dec 13, 2003 16:44:28	Sooo... What do you guys think about Erik Mona's article on Greyhawk's regional feats?
#2 zombiegleemax Dec 13, 2003 18:03:57	I like them. I DM a 3.5 campaign (in the southern Wild Coast), and one of my players has lots of 3e products. Like some other GH fans, seeing the regional feats of the FR Campaign Setting book made me think the idea could benefit GH campaigning. Thus Erik's article, which includes many of new feats, is a boon. Like with any rules, of course, DMs should scrutinize them. For example, in this issue of Dragon, there are a number of similar feats. DMs need to figure out which ones suit their campaigns.
#3 zombiegleemax Dec 13, 2003 18:31:54	I've only seen two and I have to say (well, I don't, but I will anyway :P ) that they're pretty poor. But then, I generally have a low opinion of Erik's feats. I think the majority of the paladin feats were badly thought out and either unbalanced, too weak, or too complex and clunky. None followed standard formulas and so in effect all he's done is reinvent the wheel several times over, and none of the incarnations were better. The clunky mechanics of many of them indicate to me that they were given five minutes thought each, max, and no playtesting whatsoever. Which is ironic, given that to submit a module to Dungeon, one of the requirements is that it be play-tested...
#4 ranger_reg Dec 14, 2003 1:26:34	Anybody else got a snooty opinion like Delgath's? Or praise like Tizoc's?
#5 zombiegleemax Dec 14, 2003 7:03:27	Originally posted by Ranger REG Anybody else got a snooty opinion like Delgath's? Or praise like Tizoc's? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not allowed to dislike something of the Great and Powerful Ubermiester! I forgot! How 'snooty' of me to even consider having a dissenting opinion! I'll go beat myself up and pray to Mona in an attempt to set aright this ill-thought out injustice. My only excuse is that I must've been insane at the time, your honour!
#6 samwise Dec 14, 2003 9:38:28	I dislike new feats in general. The game has more than enough, and adding more is just overloading it. With the Complete Warrior, other Complete whatever, and the new race books, we will wind up with 250 "Core" feats very easily. That is absurd. Adding more is simply not needed. Besides, there weren't enough for Keoland.
#7 Monteblanco Dec 14, 2003 9:59:14	I haven't read the piece yet so I will not make any opinion about its quality, although I assume that, being by Eric Mona, it should be at least well done. However, I don't need more feats. There are plenty of them at the core books and I don't think Greyhawk characters need them to became more tridimensional. I am in favor of less crunch more flavor.
#8 zombiegleemax Dec 14, 2003 12:02:16	I like 'em and I think it can help add a bit of flavour to a campaign*, which IMHO is a good thing. * And obviously as its a Greyhawk Flavour it tastes great.
#9 OleOneEye Dec 15, 2003 18:36:21	More feats is certainly a good thing, especially when they are embedded in the atmosphere of the Flaneass. However, I do not see my players giving up cleave or improved initiative for the rather weak feats offered. Methinks it would have been a better article if common feat paths were presented, utilizing the ones we already have. Something like, Nyrondese warriors often train the fundamentals of fighting and usually take weapon focus and combat reflexes; whileas Ratik warriors are a hearty folk with great fortitude and toughness. A listing of common feats by nation would have been far more useful.
#10 Argon Dec 15, 2003 22:20:44	I can't really tell you whether more feats are good or bad. One of the thing's about the 3 E that I don't like as much as some of the other things that were simplified by it's creation. Feats IMHO are a weak example of the proficiency system developed since 1E D&D. Not to mention that the whole feat system seems to promote the power gaming approach to the game that I dispise so much. With that said I can see how anyone who uses the feat system might find them useful when differing one nations people from others. Though I must admit that Old one Eye made a great suggestion about the feats in the issue. He doesn't think that making more feats was necessary as much as displaying feats most often used by certain people of certain nations. Much like my feeling would of been if proficiences were used instead of feats. I must admit that Erik warned me as well as a few other fans of past editions that this feat issue was not for us and more for the 3rd and 3.5 edition crowd.
#11 zombiegleemax Dec 15, 2003 23:02:03	I don't "know" 3xE as well as many of you, but I've played and DMed a few brief campaigns with it. As indicated in my first post to this thread, the Feats must be scrutinized, but I think that overall they realize D&D's potential to model well a fantasy campaign. In particular, the several Feats that reference the Ur-Flan and Blackmoor seem interesting. I also like the descriptions and abilities of the "Celestial Scion" Feat. Having said that, I agree with OleOneEye about wanting an article that suggests Feats for N/PCs of various regions in the Flanaess. Such a piece seems relatively easy to do. I don't have time for it this week, but if someone feels inspired, why not start a new thread?
#12 ranger_reg Dec 16, 2003 0:56:24	Okay, so for those of you recent posters, you want more? Or less? Or none at all? Do we do away with feats completely or does feats have a function in Greyhawk?
#13 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2003 3:20:26	It would hardly be 3e without feats and they are one of the parts of the system which allows such variation between PCs, something I love about 3e.
#14 samwise Dec 16, 2003 13:52:45	I want a more rational number of feats presented in the material intended to be "standard". Past a certain point, mastery of the system becomes impossible if you have hundreds of feats, hundreds of spells, hundreds of prestige classes, and on and on. At some point, someone has to say "Enough!", but apparently no one at WotC wants to. And so the game is a constant mess.
#15 erik_mona Dec 16, 2003 14:14:37	I agree with Sam, honestly. Although I like the regional feats concept presented in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and have always believed that Greyhawk deserves the same attention, I probably would have chosen different subject matter had I read the "Complete Warrior's Handbook" before writing the Greyhawk feats articles. As a DM, I prefer to consider the feats in the PH "canonical" and everything else optional. I've become inundated with "official" feats. I mean, come on. There have got to be hundreds and hundreds of feats by now, and no one can be expected to know all of them. I disagree (quite strongly) with the insinuation that feats have no place in Greyhawk. I think they're one of the more fun innovations of third edition, and they're certainly welcome in my game. Easy to understand expansions to what a character can do that kick in throughout advancement seems like a no-brainer to me. --Erik Mona
#16 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2003 14:22:17	Feats are one of the innovations I like about 3e. To me, feats derive from computer games like Diablo II or Fallout. Beyond mere skills or proficiencies, feats are a rule innovation that can help model extraordinary or fantastic actions by PCs. However, in 3e feats are also used merely to provide bonuses to skills. While I understand that these bonuses can "help model extraordinary or fantastic actions by PCs," I think that using feats merely to add bonuses diffused their distinctiveness. While I accept such feats in 3e games I DM, if I were to design a better system, I'd distinguish feats completely from skills. Feats also have a relationship with class abilities, but I haven't though that through adequately. Thus I disagree with Argon's contention (a few posts up). However, I don't necessarily want more feats. As Samwise has indicated, a surfeit of feats exists. (d20 publishers have even produced books compiling open game content feats!) From my standpoint, it'd be ideal if the arrary of feats promulgated in the Core Rulebooks tracked closely the upper limit of the kind (and number of feats in each category) of feats innovated. This would help DMs and PCs to design characters with adequate knowledge of the field of choice/possibility. Instead, today d20 remains in a quasi-competitive state regarding the proliferation of feats (and prestige classes). 3.5e's failure to do what I describe above is a significant flaw. Cf. the new kinds of feats introduced in the Complete Warrior. LOL! I guess a lot of us were typing at the same time. ;)
#17 erik_mona Dec 16, 2003 16:03:13	Only a few of my feats were of the "+2 to two skills" variety that littered the FR book and have now infested the 3.5 Player's Handbook. It seems to me that such feats are: a) Not worth it when you're giving up something like Cleave or Power Attack. b) Easily covered by a feat called "Talented," which allows you to pick two skills with which you get a +2 bonus. --Erik
#18 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2003 16:23:05	Well having finally gotten Dragon and read them I think they are pretty good on the whole and hope that LG considers incorporating them in the regions. Extra distinctiveness always helps. My Wiz PC really likes the look of GH method although thats probably not gonna be allowed in little ol' Onnwal where half the PHB spells are against the law and get you burned at the stake for 'foul rites'. In homebrew we only use the PHB & builder book feats unless its from the LGJ or maybe this as its GH specific to avoid the feat overload problem mentioned. Otherwise the DM has no way of knowing what PCs can and can't do.
#19 samwise Dec 16, 2003 17:37:13	I agree with Erik that feats are part of Greyhawk now that they are part of the D20 rules. And I agree with him that a simple "Talented" feat could have replaced all the +2 to a pair of skills feats. I disagree they are useless compared to Power Attack and Cleave though. If you have a campaign that includes use of skills, that +2, stacked with a +3 for Skill Focus, can make a character unstoppable with certain skills. Particularly with the Charisma skills, Use Magic Device, or Tumble.
#20 zombiegleemax Dec 16, 2003 18:19:07	Originally posted by Tizoc Feats are one of the innovations I like about 3e. To me, feats derive from computer games like Diablo II or Fallout. Beyond mere skills or proficiencies, feats are a rule innovation that can help model extraordinary or fantastic actions by PCs. Which were in turn derived from games systems like GURPS. I really despise the whole concept that 3.x was somehow influenced by computer games. It's a lot of rot. No offense. Originally posted by Tizoc Instead, today d20 remains in a quasi-competitive state regarding the proliferation of feats (and prestige classes). 3.5e's failure to do what I describe above is a significant flaw. Cf. the new kinds of feats introduced in the Complete Warrior. What's this about the Complete Warrior feats that y'all have mentioned? Originally posted by Samwise I disagree they are useless compared to Power Attack and Cleave though. If you have a campaign that includes use of skills, that +2, stacked with a +3 for Skill Focus, can make a character unstoppable with certain skills. Particularly with the Charisma skills, Use Magic Device, or Tumble. Yeah, definitely. One of my favourite characters (like most of my characters, I've never gotten to play it so it ends up being an NPC) is a Priestess of Rao who specializes in Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate. She's a POWERHOUSE! She can quite literally turn a hostile situation into a relatively peaceful one without blinking, it's cool
#21 knightfall Dec 19, 2003 15:00:17	I liked the article. Its a good springboard for creating a more localized character concept and could be a good way to get new Greyhawk player more interested in the setting as whole then just as the default D&D campaign. Cheers! Knightfall
#22 Elendur Dec 19, 2003 16:36:33	I would have liked to see some Greyhawk monsters instead, or maybe some spells. And can anyone tell me why Forgotten Realms was in that issue?
#23 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 17:39:42	I think the plan was to include pretty much every setting so FR got its slot, not that it needs it but there you go
#24 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 21:57:26	New monsters are featured in the LGJ in Dungeon 106, which has a very nice cover design! In addition to assembling and updating a large number of General feats, Complete Warrior includes Divine feats, Tactical feats, and weapon Style feats. I don't know if the Divine feats were from the 3e "splatbook," but I think that Tactical feats are a new concept. Many of them require actions in subsequent rounds to gain the benefit. (Think of fighting combination moves in video games.) Style feats seem to adapt the concept of martial arts in 3e OA, where one gained a benefit from mastering a certain martial art, i.e. gaining all the feats and other prerequisites. Style feats in 3.5e require one to expend another feat slot to gain the benefit.
#25 omote Dec 22, 2003 19:02:26	I'm sorry that this will be a bit off-topic, but after reading the article in DRAGON MAG about the FEATS in GREYHAWK, I have to ask... Why oh why isn't there a DIFINITIVE GREYHAWK setting coming out for this fabulous world?!?!?!?! The feats have got the creative juices flowing for my GH campaigns... while the article is very good, it (obviously) doesn't do the world justice!!! There should be an official GREYHAWK SETTING... and I won't stop talking about it till it happens... sorry, continue on with the topic. ........................Omote
#26 omote Dec 22, 2003 19:02:39	*deleted post due to duplicated posts*
#27 zombiegleemax Dec 26, 2003 7:30:04	Originally posted by Erik Mona Only a few of my feats were of the "+2 to two skills" variety that littered the FR book and have now infested the 3.5 Player's Handbook. It seems to me that such feats are: a) Not worth it when you're giving up something like Cleave or Power Attack. b) Easily covered by a feat called "Talented," which allows you to pick two skills with which you get a +2 bonus. --Erik My view on this: I quite like the +2/+2 feats. I prefer having them named individually rather than having a blanket "Talented" feat. Some skills go very nicely together. "Acrobatic" -> Tumble and Jump. Neat and most importantly helps to add some descriptive elements to the character. So looking at a characters feats will help you get a feel for what kind of character it is. I think that is a really good thing. Part of the trick is having a set of +2/+2 feats that make sense. From the PHB: Acrobatic, Alertness, Atheletic, Investigator, Negotiator and Stealthy are quite good. The skills fit together and they are fairly descriptive in terms of character flavour. Some of the others are a bit lame and the connection between the skills is tenuous at best. Deceitful? I'm sure they could come up with a better set of standard +2/+2 feats. I suppose it is a case of "rewarding" a character for having a good character conception, rather than just wanting to improve his two favourite skills. Enough about that. I loved the regional feats from FR. I feel they added a lot to the setting and would do the same for Greyhawk. I've not got Dragon 315 yet but I will shortly. I've not been very fond of the feats in LGJ lately, particularly the paladin ones. Only one or two of them seem useful enough for anyone to take. I'll wait patiently to see this article.
#28 swiftbrook Dec 26, 2003 20:09:23	I enjoyed the Regional Feats of Oerth article. I have been waiting/wanting these type of feats since the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting came out. IMHO regional feats do have a place in Greyhawk. I have hear that regional feats are going to be completely redone and different in the new Forgotten Reals Players Guide. My questions for Erik are: According to the From The Editior: "(Erik) a mere 8,000 words later, he'd designed so many feats that we had to cut the article in half. The other regional feats will be appearing in an upcoming issue." When? Which Issue? Many people posted they would have like more feats from ______________ (fill in the blank with regions like Furyondy, Gnarley Forest, etc.), so will there be more like that? (yah, I believe there will be, but which regions) -Swiftbrook
#29 keolander Dec 26, 2003 23:07:40	I too have to chime in and say that its about fragging time that Greyhawk got Regional Feats. Thank You Erik. Now...if only RPGA would allow them....it would make Living Greyhawk characters a little more diversified.
#30 zombiegleemax Dec 27, 2003 12:06:14	Hey Swiftbrook. Regarding your mention of the FR: Player's Guide to Faerûn, review Dragon 115, page 64, under the heading Ancestor Feats. The text mentions a "shift in philosophy ... Players should be rewarded for making an effort to ground their characters in the world[.]" IMO, the feats presented in Iquander's article accord with this "philosophy." Beyond adding bonuses to checks with two skills, such feats often include an additional benefit, e.g. "Horselore" (providing +3 bonuses to Ride and Handle Animal checks dealing with horses and setting initial attitudes of horses at "friendly"). Good work this, but as I indicated previously, it remains incumbent on DMs to consider carefully which feats to allow in any given campaign. I prefer to scrutinize feats proposed by one player in the company of the entire group, so that we may debate the merits and together achieve a good decision for our group.
#31 zombiegleemax Dec 29, 2003 17:49:53	After one of my players showed his issue to me, I had to go check it out myself. I enjoyed most of the feats, and plan on making them available to my campaign. They also stirred up some good ideas for some original feats I might add. Good to see new material for Greyhawk. Even if it isn't what some people wanted...at least something is being produced.
#32 simpi Jan 02, 2004 6:54:59	Originally posted by Erik Mona Only a few of my feats were of the "+2 to two skills" variety that littered the FR book and have now infested the 3.5 Player's Handbook. It seems to me that such feats are: a) Not worth it when you're giving up something like Cleave or Power Attack. b) Easily covered by a feat called "Talented," which allows you to pick two skills with which you get a +2 bonus. --Erik I finally got a change to read the article. I'm playing Living Greyhawk at the moment so I watched them with appropriate min/max perspective. Generally I liked them for the flavour that they bring to characters and as you said, they are not +2 to two skills (expect Mercantile Background which was from FR). They are not too powerful and in Living Campaing players would probably skip them in favour of cleave or power attack. In normal campaign I would try to take them for my PCs. As DM I might even give one for free to my players. I would take some of them for my LG characters since feats are both useful & would give some more flavour for my characters. These are: Blood of Kord: Interesting feat and not too powerful IMO. I think a barbarian/cleric would be especially good choice to have this feat. Blooded. If I could, my next feat would be this. It is a viable alternative for Improved Initiative which seems to be quite popular, even in LG. Jungle Fighter/mountain fighter. Not too good but a viable option nonetheless. Regular forest/hills might be included in them too which would make them more popular IMO. Orc blooded: Darkvision for anyone, nuff said. Great fervor: I just wonder if it stacks with 'Luck' domain I also like Badge of Bondage but why Bluff skill? Is it for 'No master, that nasty overseer really did trip over and skewered himself to that sharp stick, then he staggered over to woodcutter and his head was accidentally cut off by an axe... '?:D Anyway, I hope we don't have to wait long for the second part. I wonder why over half of those feats have something to do with blood....
#33 simpi Jan 02, 2004 6:57:28	Double post, sorry.