>>46521284
That's a lot of non-sequitur.

Feats, at their core, are just character customization blocks. The question essentially boils down to how customizable you want PCs. Everything else, like "doing interesting things in combat rather than just hacking" should be a given with or without feats.

I like to customize my characters so I like feats, but sometimes going super simple OSR style also works. It's really just up to what you want.

>>46521284
Feats allow your character to be an actual character instead of Paladin nº 5000 or Barbarian McBigStick. They're the actual character creation of any non-caster class. Your class defines your general capabilities, and your feats enable you to do the neat stuff people love about RPGs. It's also what caster classes use to get metamagic and cool supplements to their casting, so everyone wins.

Also, the level of freedom Feats give is what's so great about D&D(fighter excluded). If you like anime-like combat, you can make the most insane combinations of moves with feats, or if you just like hacking endlessy, you can choose feats that simply grant static bonuses because it covers for boring people too.

So, yeah. It's pretty damn important.

>>46521848
I've got issues laying out questions in a normal fashion, I know

>>46522007
But to both of you, thanks for your thoughts on feats. For the system I'm working on, I was wondering if I could just do it with skills, by doing an effectively classless system and having people put points into whatever skills they'd like, but both of you seem to think that feats are fairly important for customisation, and I can definitely see where you're coming from, so I'll give it some thought

>>46522262
Feats are one way of allowing customisation in a class based system. It's a way to let characters of the same class still be mechanically different from each other. A classless system doesn't have that problem, so it doesn't really need feats to solve it.

The way you're talking makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. You probably shouldn't be trying to design a system if you don't know enough to even talk about game design in a way that makes sense.

>>46522262
You could say you were planning a classless system from the start, instead of asking about a core aspect of an existing system inside said existing system's structure.

If you're already going classless, you'll have to create a lot of 'skills' to compensate for that, and give players points accordingly. Problem is, people that like combat will focus most of their points in combat stuff, so unless you make a point system where non-combat skills are cheaper, you'll have a hard time convincing people to pick "talk smoothly" over "punch things harder".

Also, the feat system is efficient because every character has few "points" which aren't interchangeable with most other stuff(unless you make specifically a 'glove of improved bull rush' and such, which is dumb), and classes that get many feats rarely get enough class features to be called umbalanced.

>>46522471
Feats, or something working like that, exist also in classless systems, and possibly are even more important there. You sound like you don0t know many games.

To put it simply: in every kind of genre/setting, if your system wants clearly defined mechanical representation of characters, some traits need to be defined in a scale in order to be able to compare them to different situations and characters - these are what in D&D are called skills. Other things don't need that; either you have a certain trait or not (or possibly you can have a couple of degrees but not a fine distinction).

That's basically all. D&D adds the complication of having other sources of traits and abilities, but look for example at World of Darkness - what are merits if not feats with a different name?

>>46524732
The equivalent to feats, in a non class based system, are not feats. They are just the mechanics of the game. Only D&D calls them feats, and calling all character abilities feats when not talking about a class based system similar to D&D is just nonsensical.

Th one who sounds like he "don0t know many games." is you. Your posts just don't make fucking sense. Is English a second language for you?

>>46525141
I'm not sure if you think I'm that guy you replied to, but that's not me. That's some other guy.

And I think feat is being used as a generic term here. Yes, it refers to the special abilities from D&D, but I think everyone can gather it can also be used to describe the equivalents. Would "generic abilities" have been better? Maybe. Does it matter enough to make it 'nonsensical'? Not really

>>46521284

The term "feat" really only applies in a D&D or D&D-derived system. It implies classes and leveling. It covers a very broad range of character effects: flat bonuses, situational bonuses, new types of actions, or waivers of class limitations. And more. Supposedly it liberates you from some of the problems of a level/class game philosophy; in practice I don't think it accomplishes that goal (though it does have benefits).

So now let's apply that to GURPS (for example). What the hell's a feat there? Advantages, mostly; one more thing to spend CP on. In oWoD and Shadowrun, you can't usually buy Merits in play at all.

Basically, your question kind of implies that you only understand one system, because it really only holds any water in that system. It's not a terrible question, but without some kind of clarification it really has no relevance except in D&D.

>>46521284
I mostly agree with >>46521848. It's simply a way of breaking down choices and advancement into bite size pieces.

That said, I rather dislike the execution of feats in 3.PF and 4e. The "Ivory Tower" design always struck me as anathema to the execution of feats and feat trees, and 4e's feat system is much too close to 3.PFs. It's better, but not enough--still too much chaff, and by the end the number of feats bloated to an ungodly level.

I really enjoy feats in 5e and Fantasy Craft and Legend, each of which really evoke a feat giving a character having tricks up their sleeve and tools in their toolbox. They're more satisfying and more interesting, and in my opinion go a much longer way towards building up the idea of your character.

>>46525496

Is "skill focus" a special ability? Kind of a stretch to call it that-- it's a flat bonus. Other feats give you situational bonuses.

Power attack modifies how attacking works.

Other feats give you new abilities entirely, like Craft Wondrous Item.

D&D smooshes those all together under the rubric of "feats". It's a broad term that captures several distinct and unrelated character changes, then tries to balance them with one another and market them under one label.

>>46521284
>Game without feats
>hack and slash/auto-atack
>Game with feats
>RPG

They are very important for customization, otherwise characters would be even less personable than they are now. Instead of playing Fighter #17 you would be playing Fighter #170.

>>46527258
This guy knows what's up. Every feat should bring something interesting the character. Legend is really good for this, but I'd have to say Fantasy Craft has my favourite feats system just because they offer very numerous and flavourful options to use in combat.

Here's one example. There's a feat chain like it (Composed of X Basics, X Mastery, and X Supremacy) for every weapon type, which means that your weapon choice has great effects on the way your character plays in combat.

AXE MASTERY
First the shield, then the squishy thing behind it!
Prerequisites: Axe Basics
Benefit: When you wield a 1-handed axe it gains bleed and when you wield a 2-handed axe its gains guard +2. Also, you gain a trick.
Sundering Chop (Axe Attack Trick): Your attack also inflicts the same damage on 1 piece of gear on the target’s person (your choice).

>>46522471
>Feats are one way of allowing customisation in a class based system. It's a way to let characters of the same class still be mechanically different from each other. A classless system doesn't have that problem, so it doesn't really need feats to solve it.
You still have feat-esque options in some (most, I think) classless systems. Advantages in M&M, Talents in EotE, etc. They don't all work the same way, but they all boil down to something you bought during or after character creation that affords your character options they wouldn't normally have.

I like them because it allows you to differentiate your character and for that differentiation to have an impact on the game.

Without feats, there would be one optimal to play each class. For example, you are a fighter, which means you will get a greatsword to maximize your damage potential. For roleplay reasons, you could also say "fuck greatswords, my guy uses knives". Without feats, you will end up intentionally gimping yourself for roleplay reasons. But if there is a feat that makes knife-fighting a viable choice, you end up with a more unique character without sacrificing anything.

>>46527361
But at its core its the Yes/No option of character customization mechanics.

Skills are things that a character can improve on and become better at, and the level of competency matters.

Feats are singular yes you can do this, no you can't.

Yes, D&D had some feats that just made things better, which worked for the system, but aren't the defining trait of the feature.