[Your View] Feat Slots

[wowj 9747]

6 minutes ago, NightcastorKitty said:

 Not even mentioning now going through to even maintaining and making sure someone isn't over the limit.

nitpick but no one checks if people are going over the limit of magic slots either, though the amount of feats that would have to be dropped could be a problem yea

[PrimnyaQuorum 4003]

Mid idea

The issue is not feat stacking, the issue is further alchemy stacking. There is zero [0] downside to Tawkins, Smoggers, and Animii, which in itself can join the other Feats that are more prevelant, such as Voidal Feats/Heraldry/Whatnot. It feels like a slipperly slope to say "oh yea XYZ magic isnt compatible with alchemy so no alchemy fa/further alchemy FAs" because you still arent addressing the main issue of stacking further alchemies, youre just making the stack different [Sycophants + Herald + Every Alchemy + Golemancy + Sorvian + Planeswalking instead of all that + 1-3 Voidal Feats]

 

IMO the easiest solution is to have 1 Further Alchemy free with your base Alchemy FA and each further Alchemy cost a MA Slot - add in some combative 1-slot alchemy MA and now Combat Alchemy + all Further Alchemy is 3 slots, inherently preventing voidal/dark magic stacking and only permitting kani/mystic/herald stacking AT MOST.

 

The same arguement could be made for Sorvian/Golemancy [Creation Feats tethered to the Soul], Sycophants/Corcs [Magical afflictions] and whatnot. Vivification feels like it serves better as a Conduits of Enlightment thing where its a "feat" but its not tracked because its so freeform it doesnt really matter provided any CRP benefits are removed from it. Equally, you could limit ones ability to TA in both Tawkins and Animii, via limiting a person to only ONE alchemical method of non-monk revival.

 

Like Seth says, I think its a bad idea to go stupid and say "too many feat stackers, limit feats!" as a univseral blanket reply instead of actually looking at the issue - there are far more naz/kani/templar/druid feat stackers then void feat stackers. 

[subatomic 1498]

ive been in this whole feat community for a while and I believe it should have a limit. 

[Suzzie 866]

not sold on the idea considering this seems more like an alchemy problem and not a true feat problem
 

[extragamer53 226]

No, stop trying to overcomplicate stuff

[PrimnyaQuorum 4003]

1 hour ago, Holyland said:

Mentioned this to Wowj in a Discord just before this, but as a prospective idea, you could divide feats into various "categories" or "archetypes" that might be taken upon yourself. The categories I thought up are listed below.

 

  Hide contents

Tawkin, Animii and Smoggers as alchemy-related

Scion, Veilwatching, Voidstalking, Eminence and Artificery as voidal, as well as Atronach

Golemancy and Sorvian as construction - should be open, not have an archetype [?]

other stuff is solely magic-related, like druids with sycophants and singing trees, or harsupex with shamanism - think these can be mixed in and not be related to any one archetype

Outliers are arcane displacement, vivification and corc, which I don't think should occupy a feat slot.

The idea with this is that MAYBE, if you were to take one of these archetypes upon yourself, you would be solely restricted to that - for instance, you'd only be able to do alchemy-related feats if you locked into that archetype, making someone like a Voidal Scion locked out of Further Alchemy, and vice versa. 

 

This is just an interesting idea, and I like the idea of still being able to be open to use up to 8 feat slots at the cost of not being able to use any magic. It prevents loading yourself up with a load of different opposing archetypes and schools of thought through that, and being able to make literally anything on the server on one character. 

 

I like the idea of actually having punishment and slight restrictions on what can be done, as it only further contributes to the building of an aesthetic and a character. An alchemist is an alchemist. A sorcerer is a sorcerer. I don't expect one person to be able to roleplay both to the absolute maximum, as the two things don't necessarily meld super well together. This not only encourages socialisation, meaning that people will reach out to others for aid instead of being able to make everything themselves, but also encourages the growth of communities. That means more roleplay. That's a good thing.

 

I think breaking Feats into seperate things in regards to limits is a good idea though, i.e

with alchemy, you only get 1 Further with the Base MA and any further alchs cost a MA slot

 

Voidals already have baked in incompatibilities with 4/6 [Voidstalking, Eminence, Scion, and Artificer are all mutually exclusive] with Veilwatching and Atronach Forging offering 0 combative benefit.

 

Golemancy and Sorvian Crafting are creation-feats involving the soul/anima, and only 1 should be a FA with both requiring 1 MA slot dedicated

 

Corc, Arcane Displacement, and Heraldry/other MA-related FAs all offer something significant in regards to RP and should be tracked by FAs

 

Sycophants, Conduits, Vivification dont really do much for RP given the lack of CRP and focus on storytelling and should just be player-tracked.

 

The only thing I see worth having some form of limit is alchemy [1 Base FA + Further FA, all further FAs beyond cost 1 MA slot per], Voidal [Mutually Exclusive Feats + Veilwatching should be mutually exclusive + Atronach forging], the Soul-based creation feats [just 1 is FA, both requires a MA slot]. Anything past that either shouldnt be limited or doesnt really need it. The process itself seems incredibly easy to manage because, again, the issue is taking any one of these grouping and shoving further alchemy + soul-based creation feats atop them. 

[Aehkaj 1244]

yea

[Cheese 8883]

3 hours ago, xo31 said:

Void and alchemy incompatible

Return thy words to thy mouth

[FlemishSupremacy 6115]

I feel like putting a limit on feats will make people hesitant on picking up the less useful feats like herald of azdromoth, if it forces them to give up a feat that gives them a significant powerboost or provides more utility.

Not all feats are created equal, and putting in feat slots kind of incentivizes being cautious about what feats you take, and writing future feats to be at least on par with some of the more useful feats out there right now.

I do think there might be some merit in limiting players to only 1 of the further alchemy feats

[MrMojoMordor 2413]

4 hours ago, Holyland said:

harsupex with shamanism

actually had to go & look this up lmao. Never seen or heard of it. It's basically shaman-flavored bardmancy.

[PCSwift 1422]

no but please i want to be a 

scion 

cursed child

herald

seer 

and an alchemist!

why!! 💢

[kuebiko 684]

No, I do feel like if feats were limited you'd see fewer people take up the less useful one. Why would I ever pick up corc or heraldry, when I'd be better off solely doing the void feats, or alchemy. 

 

I've always enjoyed meeting the maxed out alchemists, but that's probably thanks to meeting the ones who have completely roleplayed out "I am an alchemist science guy" and used further alchemy to further that roleplay nature. It's not like them having animii, smoggers, and tawkins damages what I can experience. 

 

To me, those alchemy players are basically just mages or whatever who have fully commit to one archetype. 

 

forums had a seizure posting my reply

 

 

 

[Frostdrop1 1843]

No. Less roleplay options are bad. Feats are entirely knowledge-based and make more sense to freely gain. Some feats are small, some are large - there is zero ideas of 'balanced' FAs because they just aren't built around that.

 

I'm entirely fine with having certain FAs that don't fit with some magics, as the case already is, but this should be on a unique redline basis.

 

You cannot armstrong people into playing fair. Some characters do exist for a long time and learn lots and that's okay.  Other people just stack for no real reason - they need to be dealt with separately rather than punishing the whole FA system.

[johnnydeath6 229]

Not a big fan of being limited really.

[_xMika 284]

6 hours ago, SethWolf said:

I will never  vote for less options to play the game how I want to play it. The ones I've seen people recently people jump on are the ones with combat summons and this is an issue with the feat itself, not feats in general. There are plenty of feats (Corcitura, Conduits of Enlightenment, Feat Herald) that hardly even give you anything to begin with, and it would make no sense to suddenly put up barriers to them because of a system that demands people slide their characters into DnD archetypes rather than just roleplaying their character how they'd like to roleplay them.

I second this heavily, i understand the reasoning why some may want feat slots but i heavily doubt its necessary because most of the issues come from the feat themselves, and not to mention how complicated it would be to even sort out a thing like this in the first place. But, if you're gonna do it, try to somehow put a cap  on the feats that actually give something of value (maybe they cost more slots idfk), and not the ones that basically just enhance a character's aesthetic at most.