Talk:3.5e Feats

Archives
Archive 1 (Discussions 1 – 8)

A Big Mess

This page and its subpages are one big mess. Everything needs to be converted to use the new feat templates. I wrote a bot to assist with that process; if someone could provide individual categories of feats that need to be converted and fix their respective subpages to use the auto-generating-table #ask code, that would be really wonderful. Surgo 14:05, 28 April 2009 (MDT)

I agree. why not just have their be a few options: All, General, Epic, Class, Metamagic, Metapsionic, Tactical, Heritage, and Other? --Salasay Δ 06:00, 9 June 2012 (MDT)

I have created an entirely new setup, found here. If you have any feedback on it, go to the discussion here. --Salasay Δ 11:20, 13 January 2013 (MST)

Feat categories Music / Song and Magic / Magical

The NBOF (Net Book of Feats) uses [Song] as a category for Bardic Music feats and [Magical] as a catch-all category for feats connected to magic. I think we should follow that example and rename our current Category:Music Feat and Category:Magic Feat to match the NBOF. This would make importing and updating feats from there easier. The same applies to the NBOF Birth Feat vs. our Category:Character Creation Feat. --Mkill 11:29, 17 June 2007 (MDT)

Right now, feats are split between Magic and Magical. That's not good. I've been working recategorizing the feats and condensing them down into main categories, and adding new categories were appropriate.

Birth Feats are a subset of a Character Creation feats. A character creation feat is anything that only applies at character creation, such as birth feats, some racial feats, regional feats, etc.

Myself, I find that the NBoF has categories that are too simple for us, and sometimes I just don't like their categorization. To find a bardic Music feat, I look under Song feat? That makes no sense. Feats categories which build on abilities should be named after the abilities that they encompass. Bardic Music should be Music. Smite should be smite. Sneak Attack should be Sneak Attack. Some feats fit broader categories. Smite can fit under Divine. Sneak Attack could fit under stealth.

Everything that fits under psionics has the psionic tag. If magic were to be magical, psionic should be psionical? No, that doesn't work. I prefer Magic for Magic and Psionic for Psionic. This is how we sort out the broad categories of these two items. If we move feats to magical, should we move spells and items to magical?

I may present things in the extreme here, but I have spent a while thinking about this. I would far rather fit the NBoF to us. I prefer to keep that degree of editorial control. --Dmilewski 19:59, 17 June 2007 (MDT)

While on the subject of NBoF practices, I do like the fact that, like the SRD, they have a description of each feat descriptor, either giving rules for using a feat with the descriptor (like the metamagic feats description) or a criteria that all feats within that category meet (like the divine feats description). I think it would be a good idea to implement this practice with all the user created descriptors. With the official WotC feat descriptors that are not OGC (like exalted, vile, racial, etc...), we can just provide source references for where the details can be found. —Sledged (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2007 (MDT)

Whether the NBOF categories might not be perfect, at least they are consistent, that is more than we have. We should just stick to NBOF and WOTC categories where they exists, since those are the sources where most of our material comes from, and we save a lot of work if we use the same system.

Where we use our own categories they need to be clearly defined, and there should be a category and a detailed list page and all feats should have the appropriate descriptor.

I found another inconsistency today, there seems to be confusion between [Creature] and [Monster] feats. These 2 categories need to be merged. --Mkill 10:25, 18 June 2007 (MDT)

Those should probably conform to the WotC descriptor, [Monstrous] which is detailed in the Savage Species and the Draconomicon (and probably a few other books, too).

Consistency among the feats would be good. Such a thing requires a lot more attention here because anyone can add content, and many make-up their own descriptors, many times not realizing that one already exists for the type of feat they're adding. The NBoF content, on the other hand, is only modified by a select few (and it may, in fact, just be Sigfried maintaining the content), and every feat is reviewed in detail before it's added. But the payoff would be worth the investment. —Sledged (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2007 (MDT)

Consistency is hard. You really need to know the broad scope of feat types to categorize them. That really gives us a small pool of people who can do that well. Even with experience, may be more useful categories that you can employ. I have started categories for specific races. Those aren't official, but it sure does help you to find what you are looking for, which a primary purpose of categories.

Some of these sections are getting complicated enough that having an editor for them would help. If not a named editor, someone who takes the lead and becomes the defacto expert. --Dmilewski 09:07, 22 June 2007 (MDT)

The feat sections shouldn't be too complicated, otherwise we lose the main benefit, which is saving time. As an example, "Elf feat = (def.) A feat only elves can take", thats a good definition. If it gets any more complicated than that, it's likely a superfluous category. I'm a bit unhappy with the fighter/combat feat categories, there's too much splitting. It's impossible to divide the combat feats without having half of them in several categories. I would prefer a single category "fighter" or "combat", even if that one will be huge.

As for the experts, there is you, there is me, and that's the two users mainly working on it. As wikipedia experience has it: "in the end those decide who get the job done". --Mkill 09:39, 22 June 2007 (MDT)

Next one: [Defense] vs. [Defensive] (?)

I suggest that we use this page (3.5e Feats) to define the standard feat types, and categories, subpages and feat descriptions have to follow. --Mkill 11:10, 18 June 2007 (MDT)

I did the following mergers:

• Creature / Monster -> Monstrous
• Song / Music -> Music
• Defense / Defensive -> Defensive

Still to do are Character Creation / Birth / Regional and Magic / Magical. --Mkill 18:58, 22 July 2007 (MDT)

Consistency, rules and imagination

Consistency is great and all, but if you force too much of it or make everyone conform, then it can destroy creativity, it's ok to suggest, but you shouldn't force, remember the rule books are guild lines, there there to lead some basic consistency, but every DM plays the game differently, but organization is good too, basically what I'm saying is don't cross any lines because D&D is about imagination more then rule. Sure you can say that without rules the game would be boring, but you can't have a campaign and have fun in it unless you have at lest an good storyline or at lest good Role players, also i've played games(not D&D games) with no rules, and it was fun, well until someone was a downer. --DeadlyNightShade 00:22, 22 June 2007 (MDT)

NightShade, I think you are much too general here. The consistency I want is within D&D Wiki. We have to agree on names for feat categories etc., or else no one would find anything, and everybody's time is wasted. Just imagine what would happen if some WotC game designers would call hit points "health", some would call them "life", and some "wound points". Total chaos.

As for rules vs. imagination, I'd say both is equally important. Without imagination, the game is boring, I agree. As for the rules, it is not important how many there are: There are great RPGs out there that fill no more than a single page, and there are the likes of D&D which fill several shelves. It is very much up to people's tastes. What is important about the rules is that they are reliable and consistent: If a longsword does 1d8 damage this session, it should do the same damage next session. --Mkill 05:27, 22 June 2007 (MDT)

Big Review

I did a big review of feats. All 1500.

• Updated all feats to the new format.
• Did a first pass at tagging terms in every feat.
• Checked the categories on all feats.
• Added new categorizations to feats. Most notably, the class feats and the skill feats got broken out better.
• Rearranged the feat categories. Grouped feats where appropriate, such as class feats, skill feats, and weapon feats.
• Better defined some feat categories.
• Corrected many typos, grammatical errors, and editing standards.

There's still lots to do here. We need more eyes categorizing, simplifying where possible, and expanding where appropriate. We need more tagging.

We still need to do the following:

• Check the requirements on every feat. Feats should always require their own requirements as well as the requirements for all required feats. Many feats don't do this.
• There's an order of information for requirements. This must be checked on each feat.
• Martial Style and Unarmed should be examined.
• Single Weapon Feat is a horrid term for any feat that applies to a chosen weapon. Is there a better name out there for this type of feat?

--Dmilewski 20:34, 21 July 2007 (MDT)

First of all, congratulations on this herculean task!

I agree that we need to check that indirect requirements are included in every feat, but I think it is too much to try to keep them in a certain order. It just takes too much time better spend elsewhere.

Instead of single weapon, what do you think about Category:Chosen Weapon Feat? --Mkill 23:43, 23 July 2007 (MDT)

There, as you point out, is the obvious. Chosen Weapon Feat it is. The requirement ordering is part of our editorial integrity. We have the ambition of matching WotC's standards. If I mention it, it may eventually get done.--Dmilewski 05:10, 24 July 2007 (MDT)

I'm a huge fan of taking the obvious solution, it makes life easier :)

As for prerequisite ordering, okay, if you want to do it I won't stop you of course. But one question, what actually is the official order for prerequisites, I've never seen a guideline like that. --Mkill 10:31, 24 July 2007 (MDT)

Automatic feat table

I've taken the automatic class table and changed it for use with feats. It works! See [[User:Mkill/Feat table]]. Now all we have to do is create dlpc entries in 1500 feats. The good part is that it also means we can easily create feat collection tables once this is done. --Mkill 21:04, 24 July 2007 (MDT)

You should update the preload text for new feats to explain how to create these entries. Cymaster 21:00, 12 November 2008 (MST)

Weapon style and tactical feat categories

What about adding a two new feat categories? Weapon style and tactical feats were introduced in Complete Warrior, and I would like to be able to add them in here. See for more info in here. -- Thiregan 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC +2)

Big Weapon Feats

I think we have multiple feats that do the same thing with big weapons. I'm listing them here as I come across them so we can check them over. Marasmusine (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (MDT)

I've been wondering what we should do about situations like this. I have come across repeat feats in various categories as well, and I have been unsure about what formal policy we should adopt. I was considering that we should just delete the newer versions, stating that the older version exists on the delete page. However, some of the newer version are part of the NBoF or like organizations and their deletion would be confusing to say the least. Do you have any ideas of how this is best approached? --Green Dragon (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (MDT)

• Gigantic Weapon (3.5e Feat)
  • Oversized Weaponry (3.5e Feat)
• Improved Monkey Grip (3.5e Feat)
• Massive Frame (3.5e Feat)
• Two in One Training (3.5e Feat)
• Solid Grip (3.5e Feat)