PDA

View Full Version : 4e feats: So profoundly boring



Person_Man
2008-06-06, 03:11 PM
Reading through 4e seriously for the first time now. Some stuff I like. Some stuff I'm not sure about. I get to feats.

And wow, 4e feats are the epitome of uninteresting. 90% of the feats gives you a minor bonus. +1 to Saving Throws. +2 to damage. Increased ranged by 2 squares. Some sound ridiculously situational, giving allies a minor bonus for 1 round to you or nearby allies when you fulfill an improbable criteria.

Things aren't as bad in the Paragon Tier (you must be 11th level or higher to take these feats). And the Epic Tier (you must be 21st level or higher) admittedly has some fun stuff. But should a PC really have to wait that long before getting anything worthwhile?

Anywho, I'd like the forum to prove me wrong. Specifically, I'd like to hear examples of why X feat is interesting or fun or worthwhile for any given situation, especially from people who have actually played.

I haven't played 4E yet. But I want to try. The races are clearly more interesting. The classes and their associated powers have some good options. The Skill mechanics are based on Star Wars Saga Edition, which I enjoy. But man, why even bother with feats if 90% of them provide such minor and/or boring effects?

Discuss.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 03:21 PM
Multiclass feats are inherently interesting, I think!

+1 damage may not be exciting, but when you're getting +1 from Two-Weapon Fighting, +2 from Backstabber, +1 from something else, and so on, it adds up and you pack significantly more punch.

Logalmier
2008-06-06, 03:27 PM
Thats a shame, feats are one of my favorite things in 3rd edition-I can never get enough of them, so this is a pretty big blow to me, maby they'll introduce something else to make up for this...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-06, 03:28 PM
Indeed, the Heroic feats ARE very boring. It would be foolish to say that is not the case.

As for the feats that are actually interesting, they're few. Durable, Power Attack, Wintertouched, and Toughness are examples of feats that are interesting. There's a few others, like Action Surge (Which is seriously powerful, as is Blade opportunist), but mostly, the feats are there to tide you over until the heroic tier, when things get interesting.

Kizara
2008-06-06, 03:33 PM
Multiclass feats are inherently exciting, I think!

+1 damage may not be exciting, but when you're getting +1 from Two-Weapon Fighting, +2 from Backstabber, +1 from something else, and so on, it adds up and you pack significantly more punch.

Translation: It may be lame, but so is the rest of the system, so its comparably valuable.

Honestly, that's like saying 3.x Weapon Focus is amazing because it stacks with having a masterwork weapon...

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 03:34 PM
Well sure, if you look at them in comparison to 3.x feats, you are going to think of them as boring and uninteresting.

However, 4e is not the same game as third edition.

turkishproverb
2008-06-06, 03:37 PM
Well sure, if you look at them in comparison to 3.x feats, you are going to think of them as boring and uninteresting.

However, 4e is not the same game as third edition.

No, its not.

It's weak.

Castrated skill system, near nonexistent feats, taunts. It is a pen and paper MMO.

A bad MMO.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 03:39 PM
No, its not.

It's weak.

I disagree, as do many others.

Edea
2008-06-06, 03:50 PM
I seem to remember many, if not most, of 3E's Core feats being pretty sucky, too, actually. It's the splats that had all the good feats in them. Maybe 4E splats will have more interesting feats in them?

I -do- agree that the heroic tier is...less than inspiring (though I'm happy for Expanded Spellbook). Paragon tier is just fine, imo. Epic tier doesn't have enough feats in it (and a couple of them are also...less than inspiring. What's with the radiant one, anyhow? SUPER-situational).

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 03:52 PM
Castrated skill system,
You don't have to spend skill points on things like Profession and Perform anymore--you can just do them. Skills are more versatile, not less.


near nonexistent feats,
Heroic tears aren't that good, but low-prerequiste 3E core feats weren't that good, either--unless they were, say, Natural Spell. Weapon Focus, +2 skill feats, Toughness, all that. Improved Trip was an exception, but it was a "vastly superior to everything else, every competent strength fighter takes it" exception.


taunts.
4E doesn't have taunts. 3.5 had taunts. (Have you seen the "Goad" feat? The Knight class? The "Mindless Rage" spell?) 4E has fighters who are capable of stopping their enemies' movement, and paladins whose DIVINE POWERS punish the enemy, I think divine powers are allowed to do that.


It is a pen and paper MMO.

A bad MMO.
I never get tired of this. "I don't like it, so it's just like a game run by a computer!"

turkishproverb
2008-06-06, 03:57 PM
You don't have to spend skill points on things like Profession and Perform anymore--you can just do them. Skills are more versatile, not less.

Translation: You're either maxed at something or you can't do it practically at all.



I never get tired of this. "I don't like it, so it's just like a game run by a computer!"

No, I didn't say that because I don't like it, I say it because the play style feels more like an MMORPG than almost any other RPG I've ever seen.

Kind've like If WH40K made certain rules changes, I might say it played like a tabletop RTS.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-06, 03:57 PM
I don't like it, so it's just like a game run by a computer!

You have it the wrong way round.

kamikasei
2008-06-06, 03:57 PM
I think part of it is perhaps that "giving you new and interesting options and/or abilities" is now the job of powers. A lot of the customization you would do with feats in 3.5 is done with power selection in 4e.

I think.

Bryn
2008-06-06, 04:03 PM
Does anyone have a copy of that motivator, with the circled dice, character sheets, minis etc.? The one that pointed out that 4e is still very much DnD? It would probably be appropriate.

Pyroconstruct
2008-06-06, 04:05 PM
Everyone who isn't already multiclassing should really think about taking the multiclass Ranger feat. Pick an enemy per fight, +1d6 per tier to all attacks against them for the rest of the fight. And Nature training for free, whee.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-06, 04:20 PM
It's supposed to be like that. You can't expect to gain an OMG! AWESOME feat right at first level. Better feats "costs" more (i.e., stacking with powers, or reaching higher levels). It's just that 3.x was lame when you could use 1 feat to get either a good or a bad feat. It's like paying a dollar for a single twinkie instead of a chocolate bar. It's just silly. So, yeah, now you need to make an effort to become good, instead of just picking 2-3 feats and calling it a day.

In a way, you could say that the paragon tier is more or less what the 3.5 would be around 3-5 level. They pushed the power curve back a bit.

And finally, by what I got from the reviews, feats are options to increase your character's abilities, not to work as whole class features (powers in this case).

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 04:22 PM
Translation: You're either maxed at something or you can't do it practically at all.
Barring flat DCs like Tumble and Concentration (for avoiding opportunity attacks and defensive casting), wasn't that already the case? 3 ranks in Disable Device were going to do you no good.


No, I didn't say that because I don't like it, I say it because the play style feels more like an MMORPG than almost any other RPG I've ever seen.
I must have missed that while playing Keep on the Shadowfell. it felt just like D&D to me. What should have felt like an MMORPG to me?

I'm amazed to see sentiments like this expressed seriously. Is the forum like this all the time?



You have it the wrong way round.
I hate to question people's DMs, but... if your 4E game is just like a game run by a computer, is your DM a computer? That would explain the problem.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 04:28 PM
No, its not.

It's weak.
Being OHKO bait at first level isn't weak, but having weak minor things (Feats) is?


Castrated skill system, near nonexistent feats, taunts. It is a pen and paper MMO.

A bad MMO.

Food for thought: In MMORPGs, your gear comprises the majority of your character's ability, in practice. In 3rd ed, your gear comprises the majority of your capability if you are not a caster.

Malek
2008-06-06, 04:30 PM
Everyone who isn't already multiclassing should really think about taking the multiclass Ranger feat. Pick an enemy per fight, +1d6 per tier to all attacks against them for the rest of the fight. And Nature training for free, whee.
Not really... I've read somwhere that they erratad (sp?) that already so that Hunter's Quarry from multiclass feat works only for one turn.

kc0bbq
2008-06-06, 04:31 PM
I must have missed that while playing Keep on the Shadowfell. it felt just like D&D to me. What should have felt like an MMORPG to me?You have to run the first Kobold boss every week until everyone has the armor from him who can use it and the dig site until everyone has the item there. Then you're geared up enough to move on to the keep.

You're going to wipe - I mean TPK a bunch while learning the fights though.

Spiryt
2008-06-06, 04:33 PM
I agree that boring feats and less skills are very dumb things in 4ed.
Limiting player choices only to his class powers is bad, especially that multiclassing is now more restricted.


In MMORPGs, your gear comprises the majority of your character's ability, in practice. In 3rd ed, your gear comprises the majority of your capability if you are not a caster.

If gear is really now less important it's jooolly good thing on the other side.

I must probably wait with conclusion till I see the Handbook though.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-06-06, 04:33 PM
Everyone who isn't already multiclassing should really think about taking the multiclass Ranger feat. Pick an enemy per fight, +1d6 per tier to all attacks against them for the rest of the fight. And Nature training for free, whee.
I prefer to think of it as only one of two ways to get Acrobatics outside of being a Ranger or Rogue, with the +1d6 damage as the factor that makes it better than Skill Training. I seriously took the feat for my Fighter just for Acrobatics.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-06, 04:37 PM
If gear is really now less important it's jooolly good thing on the other side.

I must probably wait with conclusion till I see the Handbook though.

Although gear is less important, I'd say it's still pretty important. Magical items give you extra powers and some really useful bonuses without even needing to take an action (Bloodthread is awesome). They don't seem as make or break as they did in 3e, mainly because stat modifying magic items are gone, but they certianly aren't something that can be discounted as unimportant when building a character above level 1.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 04:40 PM
You have to run the first Kobold boss every week until everyone has the armor from him who can use it and the dig site until everyone has the item there. Then you're geared up enough to move on to the keep.

You're going to wipe - I mean TPK a bunch while learning the fights though.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
So THAT's what we've been doing wrong!

Johnny Blade
2008-06-06, 04:52 PM
I think part of it is perhaps that "giving you new and interesting options and/or abilities" is now the job of powers. A lot of the customization you would do with feats in 3.5 is done with power selection in 4e.

I think.
Yeah, but the feats are still needlessly uninteresting. I mean, they could have thought of something better.

Especially now that we have powers, actually. I mean, how many feats are there that augment your powers?

They should have made more stuff like Inescapable Force, even something simple like:

Mighty Blow
Prerequisites: Str 15, Power Source: Martial
Benefit: Whenever a target would be dazed by a martial power you use, it is stunned instead.

(They didn't already do that, I hope. I couldn't live with the shame. :smallbiggrin:)


It just looks like they focused on powers almost entirely, while feats were more or less forgotten, as they are no longer the cool and shiny new thing.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 04:54 PM
People, people, powers are the new feats.

See, 3rd edition has several feats, like metamagic feats, fighter bonus feats, and so forth. Likewise, 4th edition has two main groups of feats, only by a different name: they have action feats (which are called powers) and things that give a bonus to something else (which are called feats).

wodan46
2008-06-06, 04:54 PM
Has any of those comparing 4e to WoW actually played both of the games? Or even 1 of them? Or are you just basing your perspective on cherrypicking all the 4e rules which vaguely remind you of what you've heard about WoW? Those who have actually played both or at least 4e may contribute constructive criticism, while the rest should be encouraged to stop contributing their un-informed slanted opinions.

That said, 4e plays nothing like WoW. 4e plays somewhat like Command and Color games mixed with Fire Emblem, both of which are turn based tactical combat games.

Draz74
2008-06-06, 05:05 PM
You don't have to spend skill points on things like Profession and Perform anymore--you can just do them. Skills are more versatile, not less.

Skills may be more versatile, because they're all a bit broader and there's no situational orphan skills like Forgery. And that's a good thing. But that's not really what you're proving.

What your argument about "not having to spend skill points on ____" shows is that Characters are more versatile. And you're right. Ridiculously more versatile. To the point that it really bothers some of us. Every Level 20 character is about as good at every skill, even if they're not Trained in it, as a Level 1 character who specializes their entire life around that skill. You can say all you want that it should be that way because "Level 20 is near-Epic!", but some of us just don't see every character as a Jack-Of-All-Trades, Master-Of-Some just because they're high level.

I want characters who can't Perform. Or who can't Swim. Having weaknesses makes characters more distinctive and believable.

Skills are more versatile in 4e. Characters are more versatile in 4e. But the skill system is SO much less versatile.

Bandededed
2008-06-06, 05:07 PM
Well, that actually really makes me happy. The Fire Emblem games have given me many a happy day (and many an angry day, but they eventually turned into: Oh, keep the axe guy away from the 5 swordmasters...I'm an idiot).

And on skills, did anyone notice there's a feat (a heroic feat, no less) that gives you a +2 on all untrained skills? Jack of All Trades, or something similar. Suddenly, you're 40% better at all untrained skills, as compared to the bonus you get from training in the skill.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 05:12 PM
Has any of those comparing 4e to WoW actually played both of the games? Or even 1 of them? Or are you just basing your perspective on cherrypicking all the 4e rules which vaguely remind you of what you've heard about WoW? Those who have actually played both or at least 4e may contribute constructive criticism, while the rest should be encouraged to stop contributing their un-informed slanted opinions.

I'm going to quote something on another forum, here...


I just played Keep on the Shadowfell, and it was awful! I had to wait for the module to load for freaking ever. Then we had to go back and forth waiting for the first kobold encounter to respawn until everyone who could use it got the stuff they were carrying!
In town, the DM would only have the NPCs say the same thing over and over, and one wanted me to bring him 5 wolf ears! And when I tried to hit him he was invulnerable! And the DM used minis with round blue bases for the NPCs. BLUE CIRCLES, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

It only went downhill from there. The recharge time on my powers is so long I can't even spam them during fights and the fighter can only hold aggro on creatures that come near him in the first place--and not even consistently, he has to actually hit them when they try to move away! Screw that, I want my freaking taunts!

Don't even get me STARTED about how many times we had to grind Irontooth before he dropped a good item! And that boss is ****ing hard, that sucked! Not to mention the fact that we had to fight our way through the instance every time, and the kobolds respawn WAY too fast.

Oh, and it was way too easy to figure out which NPC was the traitor. As soon as we got that quest we got the "accuse her" conversation option.

Worst part is, all my fellow players would do is bark orders and say "lol" and "stfu noob". It's like in-character doesn't even exist anymore!

Indon
2008-06-06, 05:15 PM
Human Wizard: Paragon Path, Battle Mage. Feat: Action Surge.
Now, your action point attack is made at +7.

Paladin: Durable, Healing Hands. More and decent Lay on Hands.

And, Skill Training is kind of interesting because some of the skills are interesting.

And Paragon tier... that's about all the interesting ones that aren't the entry-level multiclassing feats.


Food for thought: In MMORPGs, your gear comprises the majority of your character's ability, in practice. In 3rd ed, your gear comprises the majority of your capability if you are not a caster.

They also have much more variety for character abilities and many more availible options for even minor character development (See: World of Warcraft talents, Age of Conan feats) than 4'th edition does.

Really, quite different!

Jerthanis
2008-06-06, 05:16 PM
Yeah, feats aren't all that and a bag of chips anymore. Over all, they're not going to make or break any character anymore.

However, they're no longer your only options in terms of character design and customization for some classes. Powers are a character's primary method of distinguishing him or herself, and representing their style. Leap Attack is a feat in 3.5 and would be a Power in 4th, and that's true for almost half the actual good or interesting feats in 3.5.

I'm not saying I'm satisfied wholly by the feats in 4th edition, but to be perfectly fair, it's really only supposed to be playing half the role it once played.

turkishproverb
2008-06-06, 05:18 PM
Skills may be more versatile, because they're all a bit broader and there's no situational orphan skills like Forgery. And that's a good thing. But that's not really what you're proving.

What your argument about "not having to spend skill points on ____" shows is that Characters are more versatile. And you're right. Ridiculously more versatile. To the point that it really bothers some of us. Every Level 20 character is about as good at every skill, even if they're not Trained in it, as a Level 1 character who specializes their entire life around that skill. You can say all you want that it should be that way because "Level 20 is near-Epic!", but some of us just don't see every character as a Jack-Of-All-Trades, Master-Of-Some just because they're high level.

I want characters who can't Perform. Or who can't Swim. Having weaknesses makes characters more distinctive and believable.

Skills are more versatile in 4e. Characters are more versatile in 4e. But the skill system is SO much less versatile.

Decently put. It limits PLAYER and DM creation options. And for any DM that doesnt' use the "MAX SKILL NEEDED" crutch, it's a real hit in customization.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 05:19 PM
Skills may be more versatile, because they're all a bit broader and there's no situational orphan skills like Forgery. And that's a good thing. But that's not really what you're proving.


What your argument about "not having to spend skill points on ____" shows is that Characters are more versatile. And you're right. Ridiculously more versatile. To the point that it really bothers some of us. Every Level 20 character is about as good at every skill, even if they're not Trained in it, as a Level 1 character who specializes their entire life around that skill. You can say all you want that it should be that way because "Level 20 is near-Epic!", but some of us just don't see every character as a Jack-Of-All-Trades, Master-Of-Some just because they're high level.
Comparing 20th-level characters to 1st-level characters will never yield sensible results. That said, a level 20 hero has been fighting and adventuring for long enough he's learned things, become good at improvising acrobatics, etc. He's also got massive statistics.

Of course, if he has a stat of 10 for Acrobatics, a level 1 Rogue, with 16-18 DEX, will be better than him (Skill Focus to represent "specializing their entire life"). A level 1 rogue, as good a level 20 character.


I want characters who can't Perform. Or who can't Swim. Having weaknesses makes characters more distinctive and believable.
Perform isn't a skill anymore! If you want a tone-deaf character, you're welcome to roleplay that. As for swimming, I think that your character has probably figured out the rudiments, over 20 levels. If it doesn't make any sense, you could ask for a penalty on swim checks (-10 to cancel out the level 20 bonus). Most of the time it's pretty reasonable, though!


Skills are more versatile in 4e. Characters are more versatile in 4e. But the skill system is SO much less versatile.
So it offers increased fun in creation (characters are more versatile, you don't have to assign skill points for varying classes and take into account INT increases) and in play (skills are more versatile, you can use them in a variety of ways) at the expense of "skill system versatility"? I don't see that as a problem, I guess.
Besides which--in 4E, everybody can swim. In 4E, nobody could swim (unless it was a Stormwrack campaign in which everyone took the skill). I've never seen Swim come up in character generation or play; have you? Making a player spend skill points on Swim seems awful, he could be doing something useful with them.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 05:48 PM
They also have much more variety for character abilities and many more availible options for even minor character development (See: World of Warcraft talents, Age of Conan feats) than 4'th edition does.

Really, quite different!

Do you play WoW? Talents are somewhat similar to 4e feats, in that they start pretty small (The only tier 1 talent that screams "GRAB ME is going to be +1% Crit per talent point, generally). and grow as you level(Why yes I would like an ability that deals several times normal damage per hit, causes bleed damage, and provides extra threat). They don't customize your character very much until high levels, but they do provide minor bonuses that supplement your playstyle, early on. It's different from both 3rd ed (Where Feats are far, far more make or break then talents) and 4th ed (Talents are generally extremely specific. "+20% damage from Backstab." "+30% threat from SUnder Armor.")

TheEmerged
2008-06-06, 05:58 PM
I'm not saying I'm satisfied wholly by the feats in 4th edition, but to be perfectly fair, it's really only supposed to be playing half the role it once played.

That was my understanding, anyway.

RE: the "Does anyone making that statement have experience with 4th Ed & WoW?. Well, I have plenty of experience with both pencil & paper and the MMOG genres, and I play WoW quite a bit. I haven't picked up my 4th Ed books yet so I can't say too much there...

But what I've seen isn't so much that the game has turned into a MMOG, it's that it's been made easier for a computer to run. Also, a lot of the elements that don't figure into combat (like Profession) have been "streamlined out", contributing to the argument that 4th Ed is less of an RPG than 3rd Ed. This critic is content to see how it plays out first, I could see it going either way.

To be fair, a lot of the "It's not WoW" counter-arguments don't hold as much water as those making them tend to think. 4th Ed doesn't have to worry about the next group of players doing that module and doesn't have a GM that can directly control the loot the party gets. So some of the arguments like "4th Ed isn't WoW because you don't have to continually kill the same mobs" don't really work.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 06:14 PM
But what I've seen isn't so much that the game has turned into a MMOG, it's that it's been made easier for a computer to run. Also, a lot of the elements that don't figure into combat (like Profession) have been "streamlined out", contributing to the argument that 4th Ed is less of an RPG than 3rd Ed. This critic is content to see how it plays out first, I could see it going either way.

Hilariously enough, that would make AD&D an MMORPG...

Cainen
2008-06-06, 06:16 PM
Hilariously enough, that would make AD&D an MMORPG...

...have you seen the NWPs list? The defense difference between armor types/weapon types? Racial class limits and level limits? Streamlined to run on a computer that system is not.

Indon
2008-06-06, 06:17 PM
Do you play WoW? Talents are somewhat similar to 4e feats, in that they start pretty small (The only tier 1 talent that screams "GRAB ME is going to be +1% Crit per talent point, generally). and grow as you level(Why yes I would like an ability that deals several times normal damage per hit, causes bleed damage, and provides extra threat).

This is incorrect. Every X*10+1 talents into a tree, for most trees, has a tree-defining talent. I'll use the Warrior, because I haven't played in some months (I quit because the game no longer interested me) and I played the Warrior class most extensively (Also, the level cap was 70 when I stopped playing, so that's the talent breakdown you're getting).

Arms:
11-pt:Anger Management. Interesting, but not strongly significant.
21-pt:Death Wish. Character Defining.
31-pt:Mortal Strike. Character Defining.
41-pt:Endless Rage. Mildly interesting.

Fury:
11-pt:Piercing Howl. Very Significant.
21-pt:Sweeping Strikes. Significant.
31-pt:Bloodthirst. Character Defining.
41-pt:Rampage. Significant.

Protection:
11-pt:Last Stand. Significant.
21-pt:Concussion Blow. Significant.
31-pt:Shield Slam. Character Defining.
41-pt:Devastate. Character Defining.

But the real kicker to my point isn't any of these: It's Tactical Mastery, a 3-point talent in the first tier of Protection - a warrior can be fully trained on it by level 13. It changes how much rage you keep when you change stances, and is compared with Flurry, a 5-point talent on the Fury tree's 25-point tier (which is considered the single most powerful Fury talent).

If necessary, I could thottbot examples from other classes. Offhand, Nature's Grasp is _ridiculously_ awesome in the first tier of the Balance Druid, and Seal of Command, the 11-point Retribution Paladin skill, is the most defining talent the tree has.

WoW talents run the gamut, from merely significant to character-defining, and there is no strong level trend for where you get the character-defining talents because each class has wildly differing options for talents.

That's different from both 3'rd ed and 4'th ed, too.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 06:34 PM
...have you seen the NWPs list? The defense difference between armor types/weapon types? Racial class limits and level limits? Streamlined to run on a computer that system is not.

NWPs are in 2E but weren't in 1E, and were decried for sort-of-quantifying the things they did. People said "Just roleplay it!" and other such things.

I'm not saying AD&D is streamlined, because it's certainly not, it's an awkward system made up of unrelated subsystems. But while it has exact rules for what kind of weapon gets a bonus against what kind of armor (something the computer can easily handle), it has no social rules, and the NWP rules are very vague (the things they do quantify can be entered into a computer, such as Jumping NWP letting you leap a certain distance).
My point was that if not having social skills (which it does, so the point is moot) were to make 4E an MMORPG, AD&D would also be an MMORPG.

turkishproverb
2008-06-06, 07:02 PM
Perform isn't a skill anymore! If you want a tone-deaf character, you're welcome to roleplay that. As for swimming, I think that your character has probably figured out the rudiments, over 20 levels. If it doesn't make any sense, you could ask for a penalty on swim checks (-10 to cancel out the level 20 bonus). Most of the time it's pretty reasonable, though!

Perform and profession aren't skills anymore, any mission you could make requiring it is now totally subjective. congratulations.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 07:41 PM
Perform and profession aren't skills anymore, any mission you could make requiring it is now totally subjective. congratulations.

There were never any missions including Profession. The SOLE USE of the Profession skill was to make a scant amount of money. Meanwhile, the only "objective" rubric of your performance was "routine, enjoyable, great, memorable, extraordinary". If I want to play a character who dabbles in music, I'll say so. If I want to play one capable of great or even memorable performances, I'll say so. Are those 5 categories and the DCs really important enough to make PCs lack in some other area just to be good performers? Does knowing the performance was "memorable" rather than "great" matter so much?

And what was with the fact that DC 30 perform checks, doable by a level 9 bard taking 10, would attract extraplanar attention?


9th level Bard. He has 12 ranks of Perform, started with 16 Cha and increased it twice to 18 (+4). He also has a masterwork instrument (+2) and a Circlet of Persuasion (+3). His Perform modifier is now 12+4+2+3=+21. This means that, by taking ten, he nails a 31 every time. According to the PHB, this means that by playing on street corners, he will eventually attract the attention of extraplanar beings. Gimble will be sitting around drinking and playing his lute when a genie bamfs in and asks the gnome to perform at his kid's Bar Mitzvah."

Draz74
2008-06-06, 08:54 PM
Hey, no one (AFAIK) ever said the 3e skill system was perfect. I just would have rather had rules that made Profession and Perform meaningful, rather than getting rid of them.

And if you say they shouldn't exist because taking them (instead of other precious skills) will make you worse in combat -- skills, from the beginning, were supposed to define primarily the non-combat abilities of a character. If a character is sucking in combat because they got ranks in Profession rather than Tumble, the solution is simple (and not "get rid of Profession as an option"): nerf Tumble!

NephandiMan
2008-06-07, 02:20 AM
I don't care much one way or the other about the "4e = WoW" (or, more generally, "4e = MMORPG") claims - if I find 4e fun, I'll play it. If not, I won't.

That said, I think the gist of those claims is that WotC is obviously trying to appeal to a broad-based, casual-gaming crowd with 4e. Let us bite the bullet: the rules have been streamlined (or, as some would say, dumbed down) to the point where many D&D veterans find them insultingly oversimplified. For my part, I like that I got my first look at the books less than a week ago, and already I'm starting to get the rules down. Furthermore, 3.X was notoriously made up of relatively few grossly overpowered builds, relatively few moderately-powered builds, and a large number of frustratingly underpowered builds. That 4e is incomparably better-balanced than 3.X, there can be no denying.

The downside of this extreme streamlining and balancing is that, as has been noted, the versatility of the game has been cut down tremendously. Granted, many of the choices in 3.X were mediocre or just plain bad, compared to the few overpowered choices - they were still choices. And, as many on this board will be quick to remark, underpowered choices can still be fun, possibly even more fun than characters that can blow through level-appropriate encounters by themselves.

That said, these are only the core books, and I for one am willing to wait and see how versatile 4e becomes. Perhaps, with enough variety, it will feel more like the (sky-)high fantasy we've come to expect from 3.X. Nonetheless, I am a bit put out that they released a core rulebook with just eight base classes. The paragon paths and epic destinies do add some variety to that, and the PHB expressly promises that new classes will be released for each of the four basic party roles, but even so...well, I could do worse than to quote myself, from another thread.

I was originally worried that 4e would be like a buggy game that WotC rushed to release and then "fixed" through patches - but that's not the case. It feels more like a game they rushed to release with a very small amount of very well-balanced, well-polished content...so that they can sell a boatload of expansion packs later on.

Sure, all their decisions make sense from a business perspective. I haven't played 4e yet, but I'm hoping their decisions make sense from the perspective of a long-time player and lover of D&D, as well. Fortunately, preliminary reports from people who've played it seem to indicate that will be the case.

Drammel
2008-06-07, 02:24 AM
Is it just me or am I the only one that read that feats are now gained at every even numbered level, in addition 1st, 11th, and 21st? Granted, these feats are as the title of the thread accurately puts it 'profoundly boring', but I'm not seeing anything much more exciting in the 3E Player's Handbook.

What I do see is potential. Even now, mundane as these feats are, you still have numerically more of them to work with. Play around with all those tiny +1s and they stack up. Okay, so manybe we end up with a reasonble +3 somewhere or reduce specific instances where a +1 applies to a broader range and then end up with a headache from number crunching. Whoop dee do, I can understand why it's still disappointing. However, we've still got more options with the weak feats in 4E than in 3E, purely on the math.

What made feats fun for me in 3E wasn't taking a few power charged behemoths and calling it a day. It was the fine art of finding those odd little feats in the corner, mixing them together in just the right way and ending up with a kobold ranger, who hunts dinosaurs by throwing spears after casting entangling roots, and then crafts all his armour from his prey (yay Triceratops helm!). Certainly not the most effective build, but his fighting style is as distinct as his backstory.

We've all had a character concept like that where we said to ourselves 'wouldn't it be fun if...' and then tried to build it, but ran into a brick wall because we ran out of feats. That's how people become addicted to flaws. As a rule they are arguably imbalanced, but man do they ever make things easier. Well now more feats are apart of the rules and we haven't even dug into the splat books yet. The only real problem is that the feats we have to work with now genrally are trash. Oh yeah, and we've got powers to choose from as well. For my part I'll be seeing what I can mix and match with the multiclass feats, as the powers/class features they replace/add/whatever are more fascinating as a game mechanic. Then I'll see what's up with the rabid homebrewing forums. You know someone somewhere has to be converting feats to 4e from 3e and there's probably more than one of them. It's a brave new world, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Jarlax
2008-06-07, 05:22 AM
? Anywho, I'd like the forum to prove me wrong. Specifically, I'd like to hear examples of why X feat is interesting or fun or worthwhile for any given situation, especially from people who have actually played.

nope, i agree feats feel underpowered. but more importantly if feels like there is little selection.

first off we get feats every second level instead of every third, since we are going to get more feats across our levels (3.5 had 7 across 1-20, 4e has 12 from 1-20) so each feat is "worth" less than a 3.5 feat. your getting many small bonuses instead of several large ones.

that said there is also a very small selection to work with out of the PHB, of course many classic feats are gone thanks to many changes in mechanics but that does not excuse the limited selection of heroic tier feats.

my prediction is that they have touched all the "core" feats in the PHB, like improved init, weapon focus, skill focus, armor and weapon proficiency feats, etc. and that we will see a wider selection of feats for each class in their upcoming splatbooks.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-06-07, 06:25 AM
Right... I just got my copy of 4e and had a brief look through the PHB. My first impression wasn't so good though: it's messy. The contents are all over the place and most of the abilities are (IMHO) rather repetitive and limiting enough to restrict how individual/characteristic a given PC can be.

I should get some proper perusal before I can make my mind about the value I got for my money, but overall I'm not impressed.


p.s. OK, here're a few things I like about the 4th edition: I'm a big fan of SW: Saga edition, and Skill system and the class progressions of 4e pleases me somewhat. I'd really want to do something about the classes chapter though. It's unbearably messy.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-06-07, 10:22 AM
This is incorrect. Every X*10+1 talents into a tree, for most trees, has a tree-defining talent. I'll use the Warrior, because I haven't played in some months (I quit because the game no longer interested me) and I played the Warrior class most extensively (Also, the level cap was 70 when I stopped playing, so that's the talent breakdown you're getting).

Arms:
11-pt:Anger Management. Interesting, but not strongly significant.
21-pt:Death Wish. Character Defining.
31-pt:Mortal Strike. Character Defining.
41-pt:Endless Rage. Mildly interesting.

Fury:
11-pt:Piercing Howl. Very Significant.
21-pt:Sweeping Strikes. Significant.
31-pt:Bloodthirst. Character Defining.
41-pt:Rampage. Significant.

Protection:
11-pt:Last Stand. Significant.
21-pt:Concussion Blow. Significant.
31-pt:Shield Slam. Character Defining.
41-pt:Devastate. Character Defining.

But the real kicker to my point isn't any of these: It's Tactical Mastery, a 3-point talent in the first tier of Protection - a warrior can be fully trained on it by level 13. It changes how much rage you keep when you change stances, and is compared with Flurry, a 5-point talent on the Fury tree's 25-point tier (which is considered the single most powerful Fury talent).

If necessary, I could thottbot examples from other classes. Offhand, Nature's Grasp is _ridiculously_ awesome in the first tier of the Balance Druid, and Seal of Command, the 11-point Retribution Paladin skill, is the most defining talent the tree has.

WoW talents run the gamut, from merely significant to character-defining, and there is no strong level trend for where you get the character-defining talents because each class has wildly differing options for talents.

That's different from both 3'rd ed and 4'th ed, too.


Actually your wrong about the tactical mastery, most fury builds don't take it. Stance dancing isn't really that great until 50+ levels and most talents under the 21 point talent mark aren't considered defining.

The only real argument you have is devastation in the first tier +5 to crit is some thing every warrior should have. If you think natures grasp is amazing as a first tier ability then you really haven't played in a while. natures grasp hasn't been considered any good since Burning crusade came out. and no seal of command is also not considered defining as its theory craft on proc rate hasn't been 100% confirmed and I know alot of Ret pallys that use seal of justice instead for the steady damage.

although I must agree flurry is the sex for warriors.

Indon
2008-06-07, 11:29 AM
Actually your wrong about the tactical mastery, most fury builds don't take it. Stance dancing isn't really that great until 50+ levels and most talents under the 21 point talent mark aren't considered defining.

I should have specified 'by Arms warriors' (at least, if the Mortal Strike build I knew is still prevalent). And Stance Dancing is essential at almost all levels - for PvP. It's just that most people speed through the low levels without doing much PvP.


although I must agree flurry is the sex for warriors.

Ultimately, do you agree that important talents often don't trend towards the top of the trees, and are instead just scattered about? After all, only one of the warrior trees has a 41-point talent which is comparable to its' 31-pointer.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 11:51 AM
I'd really want to do something about the classes chapter though. It's unbearably messy.

What don't you like about it?

Each class has its own section, which lists everything you need to create a character of that class. There's no separate Powers or Paragon Paths section that you have to flip back and forth to.

I think that it's very well designed, and those in my gaming group who looked at it agree.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 12:04 PM
One good improvement would be moving the Class/Racial feats to their class/racial section. That aside, I'm unsure.

Indon
2008-06-07, 12:07 PM
What don't you like about it?

Each class has its own section, which lists everything you need to create a character of that class. There's no separate Powers or Paragon Paths section that you have to flip back and forth to.

I think that it's very well designed, and those in my gaming group who looked at it agree.

While I like that the powers are grouped by class, I'm not much of a fan that all the powers are grouped with the class entry. Though, with the way the powers system works, that's still a more intuitive arrangement than separating them.

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-07, 10:02 PM
I have to agree that individual feats are not as powerful as some 3.5 feats, but you do get a whole lot more of them than you do in than in 3.5. So I can understand why they've powered down a lot of individual feats. Also with the power mechanic they don't really require feats as much to provide customization to characters with the same class, which was the purpose of that mechanic in the first place. Also to 4e credit, their feats seem to be much more balanced, like most aspects of 4e, in comparison to 3.5's feats.

For the most part 3.5 feats fell into 2 categories useless or overpowered. You could get a feat that gave you a +2 to will saves or one that gave you 2 or three spell like abilities, yep those two are completely equivalent to each other. With all the splat books things only got worse: tome tainted soul + Dread Necromancer = Effective Regeneration. Of course some of the most broken feats were right in the middle of the PHB, Wild Shape anyone?

So yes there's no denying that individual feats don't accomplish what near as much as some of their 3.5 ed. peers did, but there's a fairly logical reason for it.

So I'm interested would anyone like to prove me wrong on this matter? And I don't want to hear, "Well if you don't allow Wildshape and Arcane Thesis then there's no problem." Since many anti-4ed kids have made it clear even the simplest house rules don't make the rules actual rules of the game any better.

bosssmiley
2008-06-08, 06:32 AM
Reading through 4e seriously for the first time now. Some stuff I like. Some stuff I'm not sure about. I get to feats.

<trim>

Things aren't as bad in the Paragon Tier (you must be 11th level or higher to take these feats). And the Epic Tier (you must be 21st level or higher) admittedly has some fun stuff. But should a PC really have to wait that long before getting anything worthwhile?

Fun feats in Epic Tier? Oh, you must mean apart from the lazy copypasta that's the half-a-dozen mechanically identical versions of Improved Critical? The Epic feats in 4E are as bad as the epic weapon and armour qualities in 3E's ELH: 6 or 7 choices masquerading as twice that. :smallannoyed:

As for the missed opportunity that was 4E feats in general, I think "Races of War" said it better than I could:

Feats are an interesting and tangible way to get unique abilities onto a character, but they have fallen prey to two key fallacies that has ended up turning the entire concept to ashes in our mouths [...] The second is the idea that a feat should be equivalent to a cantrip or two. This one is even less excusable, and just makes us cry. A +1 bonus is something that you seriously might forget that you even have. Having one more +1 bonus doesn't make your character unique, it makes you a sucker for spending one of the half dozen feats you'll ever see on a bonus the other players won't even mention when discussing your character.

Mando Knight
2008-06-08, 08:22 AM
like Command and Color games
...That would be an interesting game, but do you mean Command and Conquer? Command and Color sounds like... C&C mixed with a box of crayons...:smalltongue:

Iudex Fatarum
2008-06-08, 09:26 AM
I am yet to see a 4e PHB because they don't exist here yet. But I do like the ideas that I have seen/heard so far. To have a +1 on attacks made under certain conditions is more interesting than a +1 to attacks in general, I understand its not as powerful, but it makes your character think more than, I run up and bash its brains in.

wodan46
2008-06-08, 09:33 AM
no. command and colors is a boardgame system with many settings, from world war 2 to medieval fantasy to civil war to ancient greco-roman stuff. Generally, things like flanking and positioning tend to play a substantial role.

4e's flanking reminds me of Command and Colors, its opportunity attacks remind me of Tide of Iron (except its melee only), and its leveling heroes operating in a turn-based strategy schematic where positioning matter reminds me of Fire Emblem.

Learnedguy
2008-06-08, 09:35 AM
The feats are boring, the powers are interesting. I'm pleased.

(although if I'm going to be completely honest, I like to hoard small static bonuses, especially if they need special requisites to activate. I don't know why. I'm just obsessed with it)

Fawsto
2008-06-08, 09:42 AM
Yeah, feats do seem to suck here. But wait, feats are much less important than in 3.5. Your charcter is based on his powers.

In 4E you will never say "I attack him", but rather use any at will powers. I mean, while playing a Paladin yesterday I never declared a strenght vs. AC basic attack or power, my character is fighting with his CHARISMA, God damn it! I've always wanted to see this!! I chose basic feats for him: Weapon Focus and Power Attack. Only that. And I had no time for using Power Attack. I almost did not remmember about it while fighting.

It was totally outshined by the powers.

IMO, feats are complements to the charcter, not the character himself.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-08, 09:48 AM
In 4E you will never say "I attack him", but rather use any at will powers.

That's true, but it's mostly psychological. In 3E, when a spellcaster runs out of spells, he has to resort to his weakest attack, which is something like a crossbow. In 4E, when any character runs out of encounter and daily abilities, he has to resort to his second-weakest attacks, since there's no point in using standard attacks. :smallbiggrin:

The_Werebear
2008-06-08, 10:57 AM
The Feats I liked from 4e (Heroic Tier)

The Channel Divinity Ones (yay some specialization based on deity)
Jack of All Trades
The Multiclassing feats
Ritual Caster
Skill Training

Myatar_Panwar
2008-06-08, 11:19 AM
I'm sure it's been said about a million times already, but I'm not going to wade through 3 pages of what looks like more 4E bashing, something that has burned through my eyes for the past couple of months, but feats are not what make your character like in 3.5. In 3.5, feats were all important, they determined if you sucked horribly or destroyed monsters with a nonsensical number of attacks.
That's the powers job now. As far as I see, powers are the new feats, but with class restrictions as to help avoid pure twinkage.

After all, feats are now practically fighter progression (1 at first, and 1 at every even level after that), they don't need to be exceedingly powerful. You have class powers to look forward too.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-08, 03:11 PM
Um...I noticed something really obnoxious on this thread.

The OP was about feats in 4e relative to the rest of 4e, and a good third of the responses were "4e is stupid and is WoW." You know, at some point people are going to want to talk about the system, and it's really not going to be necessary for people to repeat their general dislike of it at every opportunity.


As to the actual topic, I was also unimpressed by most of the feats, other than the Racial and Multiclass feats. I do agree, however, that the Powers take up a lot of the place that feats did in 3.x, and Feats to me are more remeniscent of Talents in d20 modern/saga, they're relatively small bonuses that appear in large number, allowing customization over time due to what looks like a greater number of feats.
And before the haters jump in about how stupid that is, it works in allowing players to slowly specialize rather than having to choose a team by picking Power Attack or Combat Expertise at level one and building around that.

Also, I do like that feats seem to be more uniform in power; they were very choppy in 3.5; as certain feats (Power Attack, Leap Attack, Practiced Spellcaster) were near-mandatory powerhouses and others (Acrobatic, Toughness) were sort of jokes. Also, it's nice to worry as much about working through feat chains like Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack.

Zeful
2008-06-08, 04:14 PM
No, its not.

It's weak.

Castrated skill system, near nonexistent feats, taunts. It is a pen and paper MMO.

A bad MMO.

As a rebuttal to that statement here is a comparison of 4e to MMOs


I've never really understood where the 4e=MMORPG idea comes from.

What is an MMO? An MMO is a game where...

The player plays in a persistent game world containing thousands or even millions of players. This is obviously not true in 4th Edition.

All NPCs are controlled by the computer. As a result of this, their actions are extremely simplified, and they behave according to set rules. As 4th Edition is controlled by a GM, this is not true, and NPCs can be as intelligent or unintelligent as he likes.

As a continuation of the previous point, friendly NPCs will stand still to give quests to players. Not true in 4th edition, for the same reason as above.

Conversation options with NPCs are restricted to certain options as it would be impossible to generate original conversations, especially for every one of the thousands of players. In 4th Edition, NPCs say whatever the DM makes them say, and players can say whatever they want too.

Enemies exist for the express purpose of being killed. They will stand in a certain area and roam around it until they are attacked and killed, sometimes attacking nearby players. No such restrictions exist in 4e.

A player will expect to fight many hundreds of enemies, all of whom are exactly the same and behave in the same way depending on their group, and all of whom spawn at random. In 4e, one can expect to fight fewer enemies and for these enemies to exist in a way that does not break verisimilitude.

Combat is real time, as the game world must progress for all players at once, and they cannot wait for one person to complete their turn. In 4th edition, combat is turn-based.

Activities in the game world for players are restricted to either killing things, or doing other activities such as crafting which improve the player's ability to kill things. The actions that characters take in 4th Edition are dependent on what the GM lets them do, but the mere fact that skill challenges and rituals exist means players have more options than your standard MMO character.

In combat, placing is only important insofar as you are in range to use your abilities. Flanking, positioning in the environment, and the like are not considered. However, in 4e, positioning is relevant and can have an effect on the outcome of the battle, especially when it comes to characters such as the Rogue who use combat advantage to great effect.

If they are present, actions such as climbing, swimming etc. are limited. In 4th Edition, the characters can climb any surface the DM allows them to, etc.

The abilities that a character can use depend on the amount of time since that ability was last used. In 4th edition, powers are based on encounters and days, both times that have no relation to MMORPGs.

A standard tactic in combat, at least at low levels, is to pick a certain ability that is powerful and use it repeatedly. In 4th Edition, the ability can only be used once in that fight if it is an encounter power, or once per day (a timescale completely nonexistent in the reasonably fast-paced MMO, since characters can't skip time by resting). However, there is some similarity between the powers system, in that everyone gets powers.

Due to the large numbers of players, it is important that characters are heavily optimised in order to compete with others. In 4e, a group can be as optimised or unoptimised as you want it to be.

The presence of many other players means that there will be numerous other heroic adventurers simultaneously fighting monsters, far more even than NPCs. In 4e, the players are the only group unless the DM feels the need to add another party of adventurers; there will certainly not be hundreds of fellow heroes.

The game world will not change as a result of the players' actions, except in some cases, and even then it follows certain rules and only a few states can be seen. In 4e, there is nothing stopping the characters having a large effect on the game's world.

Interaction with the community uses a text-based format which needs the players to type quickly, resulting in colliqualisms and chatspeak; on roleplaying servers, conversations will progress slowly due to the text-based communication. While this effect is lessening due to the increase in microphone headsets, emote actions are also limited by the game. 4e allows interaction to proceed at whatever rate the players want.

An MMO is presented using computer graphics, which will almost never be as impressive as what a player can imagine themselves (although modern graphics can create some stunning images, these appear mostly in single-player games and multiplayer games with few players, due to the problems of graphical synchronisations). 4e appears as well as the players imagine it, and the art in the book is more detailed than any real-time MMO can be.

I am open to anyone pointing out that I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, 4e is very much a tabletop game rather than an MMO. The only similarity that I observe is the powers system, but the presence of a powers system only means that 4e has a powers system and certainly will not result in any of the negative aspects of the MMORPG (an obnoxious community, dull level grinding, repetitive fights)

The people who compare 4e with a tabletop wargame might have more justification, but personally I feel that 4e is still very much a tabletop RPG, albeit a tabletop RPG in which there is a detailed combat system (which is what DnD always was).

ghost_warlock
2008-06-08, 04:46 PM
Fun feats in Epic Tier? Oh, you must mean apart from the lazy copypasta that's the half-a-dozen mechanically identical versions of Improved Critical? The Epic feats in 4E are as bad as the epic weapon and armour qualities in 3E's ELH: 6 or 7 choices masquerading as twice that. :smallannoyed:

As for the missed opportunity that was 4E feats in general, I think "Races of War" said it better than I could:

+1

Seriously, of the 17 Epic Tier feats, 7 are Specialized forms of Improved Critical and 2 are Wizard-Only.

The only ones that interested me at all for my warlock were Epic Resurgence, Font of Radiance, and Triumphant Attack. Then I noticed that Triumphant Attack only applies to melee attacks. {sputter}

Person_Man
2008-06-08, 10:37 PM
OK, to summarize and respond to what I've heard people say:

1) Some feats are actually interesting and/or useful.

Examples people have listed, listed in order from interesting to boring:


Multiclassing feats: Basically lets you duplicate some powers. Too bad you can only take 1.

Ritual Caster: One of the few feats that provides you with a bunch of new options.

Skill Training: Adds training in a new Skill. Skills can be interesting.

Action Surge: This feat is on the suggested list for every class that uses human as an example character. It provides (comparatively) better bonus then most feats. But its still pretty boring.

Channel Divinity: Deity specific, so at least there's some fluff value attached to the minor bonus.

Epic Resurgence, Triumphant Attack, Font of Radiance: Requires you to crit, and thus its quite rare this will be useful.

Durable: Increases # of healing surges. Meh.

Toughness: Bonus hit points at each tier. Meh.

Power Attack: Minor, slowly scaling damage. Meh.

Jack of All Trades: Minor bonus to untrained Skills. Meh.

Healing Hands: Improved Lay on Hands. Meh.

Wintertouched: Very situational.

So it looks like my first 4E PC will have a multiclass feat, Ritual Caster, maybe Action Surge, and a bunch of Skill Training. Everything else is basically just extra bookkeeping.

2) Most 3E feats were boring (Weapon Focus et al). So we really can't expect 4E feats to be interesting. There are a few interesting feats in core 4E, and the splats will bring us more.

This is a fair point. It's also probably true - codex creep will eventually produce every possible feat - a thousand monkeys typing and whatnot.


3) Some 4E feats stack well. So even if they're not interesting, they're still comparatively useful.

I'll concede that. But despite my reputation for being a power gamer, I'm more interested in having fun. From what I've seen, 4E feats have almost no fluff, and add few new character options. But again, I'm hoping someone will show me more evidence I'm wrong, because I want to give 4E a fair shake.


4) You get a lot more feats in 4E then you ever did in 3E, so of course they're going to be comparatively worth less then before. In exchange you get the joy of gaining them more often.


I'm not really interested in more bookkeeping unless it brings me more options. Who cares about having +1 to hit? The DM is just going to raise the enemy's AC by +1 to compensate. I want every feat to provide a new character option. Otherwise, don't even bother writing it.


5) Giving you new and interesting options/abilities is now the job of powers. A lot of the customization you would do with feats in 3.5 is done with power selection in 4e.

I think this is true. Powers are the new feats. Feats are now just minor perks. But again, why even include feats then?

To venture a guess; WotC knows that feats are popular. So they kept feats. But mechanically, they put everything interesting about feats into powers. And to keep feat balanced, they put them all on par with Weapon Focus - so that newer PCs wouldn't make "bad choices" by taking Weapon Focus, when they "should" really take Improved Trip.

IMO, this was a dumb choice. Instead of having 100 pointless feats, I would have much preferred 20 interesting ones. And honestly, they had over 1,000 feats to draw from in the 3.5 splat books. They couldn't sort out 100 interesting and useful feats from them for 4E, and kill the boring ones like Weapon Focus instead?


6) Feats are supposed to be like that. You have to earn interesting feats by progressing in levels.

I don't buy this argument. Feats should be interesting at every level - otherwise, why even bother having them? It just creates more bookkeeping, without adding any fun value to the game or fluff value to my character creation options.


7) 4E = WoW

I've heard this argument on a million threads. I don't play WoW, and have no interest in online roleplaying games. So really I have no basis to judge whether or not this is true. And this thread is not an attempt to resolve that argument. It's (theoretically) a discussion of feats.

Thanks for the input everyone. Please keep it coming.

Helgraf
2008-06-09, 01:16 AM
Translation: You're either maxed at something or you can't do it practically at all.

Wrong. You're either very good at something, or you're alright at it.

Being 'trained' in certain skills also gives you access to abilities you can't get untrained, regardless of your skill total.

Your skill base is half your character level, plus your attribute modifier, +5 if you're trained in the skill.

So at level 20 - untrained athletics (Strength based skill) : 10 + Str mod
trained athletics : 15 + Str Mod. It's no longer godly or nothing.

Skill focus puts the trained person who is willing to spend a feat (of which you get considerably more than you did in 3.x) three points up on the curve. So yes, your trained professional comes out 8 points ahead at 20th level, assuming equal attribute.

Now, 3.5 version:
In-Class: 23 ranks + str ... add skill focus if you're willing to burn one of your 7 feats (pre-epic) and it's 26 + str ... 25 + str if you choose to take a +2/+2 feat instead.

Cross-Class: 11.5 ranks + str.

Difference: 12 ranks _before_ skill focus. 15 afterward. Yeah ... and to get there, your cross-class fellow had to burn just as many skill ranks, and unless he was, say a rogue learning Concentration; doing it from a class with fewer skill points to burn - either your flavour had to come at the expense of skills generally deemed required for your class, or you ended up with less than maximum skill ranks for your level and the gap widens even further.

So yeah ... 5 (8 with SF) bonus ahead ... versus 12+ bonus ahead. Which system is it exactly that's pushing the max or nothing credo?



No, I didn't say that because I don't like it, I say it because the play style feels more like an MMORPG than almost any other RPG I've ever seen.

Kind've like If WH40K made certain rules changes, I might say it played like a tabletop RTS.

Or maybe even like an RPG ... ala Dark Heresy?

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-09, 01:39 AM
+1

Seriously, of the 17 Epic Tier feats, 7 are Specialized forms of Improved Critical and 2 are Wizard-Only.

The only ones that interested me at all for my warlock were Epic Resurgence, Font of Radiance, and Triumphant Attack. Then I noticed that Triumphant Attack only applies to melee attacks. {sputter}

Yeah, Warlock options are insanely limited

Which is why mine will be running around in scale mail brandishing a rapier. He'll have extra hit points, healing salves, languages, and skills galore while still doing great damage with all his powers.

...I'm sorry I missed the problem you were having.

Charity
2008-06-09, 01:57 AM
Actually I have almost no problem with the Heroic tier feats, some are more use than others, some are more interesting than others.

I do have more trouble with the Paragon and Epic tier feats, in so much as they all have quite severe prerequisites, most the weapon based ones need two 15's in Paragon and a 19 and a 17 in epic. Now unless you are using those specific stats as class stats then they are seriously unattainable.

Look at the heavy blade ones, they all require Dex if you are a fighter or a paladin why would you have even a 15 dex let alone a 17, and the hammer/flail/axe feats all follow the same theme with even higher scores in two stats needed.
Without stat boosting items I can forsee characters choosing heroic tier feats at Epic levels... I imagine they will bring out further feats but surely they will follow the same formula, thus making them un attainable except if you spend all your stat increases boosting stats you won't otherwise use in order to meet the prerequisites... The prerequisites seem far too severe, especially as you already have a level requirement on the paragon/epic tier feats.

Bearonet
2008-06-09, 02:23 AM
Look at the heavy blade ones, they all require Dex if you are a fighter or a paladin why would you have even a 15 dex let alone a 17, and the hammer/flail/axe feats all follow the same theme with even higher scores in two stats needed.
Because powers that work better with Heavy Blades often have effects that key off of Dexterity, for Fighters! A Fighter using Heavy Blades is going to want a high Dexterity anyway. A Paladin wouldn't, and as a result a paladin is not going to be as good with his weapon as a Fighter--which is perfectly appropriate (and, I'd imagine, intentional). The hammer/flail/axe feats work the same way.

Charity
2008-06-09, 02:38 AM
So all those feats are Fighter only are they?
Er and as both fighters and paladins fill the same role why is it "perfectly appropriate" that they have a large feat advantage?

I am a fan of 4e but the higher tier feats are not implimented well, especially if 50% are for fighters only, and even then any given fighter is only going to want 1 of that 50%.
Sorry I remain unconvinced.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-09, 02:42 AM
So all those feats are Fighter only are they?
Er and as both fighters and paladins fill the same role why is it "perfectly appropriate" that they have a large feat advantage?

I am a fan of 4e but the higher tier feats are not implimented well, especially if 50% are for fighters only, and even then any given fighter is only going to want 1 of that 50%.
Sorry I remain unconvinced.
They're not fighter only...they're just more likely to be chosen by a fighter. And the difference is that Paladin is meant to be more defensive and the fighter is meant to be more offensive, at least in theory.

Also, you're forgetting that by the time you reach the higher tears, you will have had several stat boosts, all of which allow you to raise two stats at once. It's very possible to pump dexterity while still focusing on your primary stats.

Bearonet
2008-06-09, 02:54 AM
So all those feats are Fighter only are they?
Er and as both fighters and paladins fill the same role why is it "perfectly appropriate" that they have a large feat advantage?
Fighters are the Weapons Guys. That's why they have powers that work better with specific weapons, and a class feature related to weapons.

Paladins have their own set of feats that Fighters can't take, like Channel Divinity and the Lay On Hands-enhancing feat. Other people can take Fighter-mostly feats; e.g. Heavy Blade Opportunity for a Brutal Scoundrel rogue (which is actually really cool when paired with Deft Strike or especially Riposte Strike--seriously: land a Riposte Strike on an opportunity attack and if they then attack you, you get an extra counterattack).


I am a fan of 4e but the higher tier feats are not implimented well, especially if 50% are for fighters only, and even then any given fighter is only going to want 1 of that 50%.
Sorry I remain unconvinced.
I fully agree that Epic tier needs more feats. Paragon is fine.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-09, 04:57 AM
5) Giving you new and interesting options/abilities is now the job of powers. A lot of the customization you would do with feats in 3.5 is done with power selection in 4e.

I think this is true. Powers are the new feats. Feats are now just minor perks. But again, why even include feats then?

To venture a guess; WotC knows that feats are popular. So they kept feats. But mechanically, they put everything interesting about feats into powers. And to keep feat balanced, they put them all on par with Weapon Focus - so that newer PCs wouldn't make "bad choices" by taking Weapon Focus, when they "should" really take Improved Trip.

IMO, this was a dumb choice. Instead of having 100 pointless feats, I would have much preferred 20 interesting ones. And honestly, they had over 1,000 feats to draw from in the 3.5 splat books. They couldn't sort out 100 interesting and useful feats from them for 4E, and kill the boring ones like Weapon Focus instead?

My guess is that feats were, as you said, split into feats and powers, precisely because it was hard to tell if a feat was good or not on 3.x. Now you have the cool and new stuff for powers, and the small tweaks for feats.
You asks why even bother with feats? It's just so you don't need to waste powers in minor things. I think someone compared feats with d20 Modern's talents. I guess that's right. Feats are the old talents, and powers are the old feats.

Jerthanis
2008-06-09, 05:00 AM
Look at the heavy blade ones, they all require Dex if you are a fighter or a paladin why would you have even a 15 dex let alone a 17, and the hammer/flail/axe feats all follow the same theme with even higher scores in two stats needed.

I think you've just not quite acclimated to how much base stats go up over the course of a character's career. I actually had quite the shock at this when I was fretting over the idea of playing a character of a race that wasn't wholly appropriate for his class. (A Tiefling Fighter, Tieflings get +2 Int/Cha, when Fighters end up needing to be Str/Dex/Wis)

Eventually I found out that the racial bonuses are eventually outstripped by the bonuses you get from leveling up, and that even if I had a more even 16 str/12con/13 dex/13 int/14 wis/12 cha at the beginning, I will probably be in the neighborhood of 19 str/13 con/15 dex/12 int/16 wis/12 cha by level 11, and that gives me access to almost all of the weapon feats available at the paragon tier (although not scimitar dance, and that you could get if you focused a little more on dex than wisdom) And this is without sacrificing a single advancement point that I could have put in strength and didn't. If I wanted a higher Dex or Wisdom, and was willing to pay the price in strength, they could easily be higher.

If I wanted a Paladin with Heavy Blade Opportunist at 11th level, I could be an elven Paladin with 16 Str/11 con/15 dex/10 int/14 wis/14 cha at 1st level and already fill the requirements. The Epic Tier Heavy Blade Mastery is fulfilled without choosing to add points onto dex at any point. It'll be 17 at level 21 from the automatic stat increases alone. If you want Flail or Spear mastery, just get around to putting two points into dex at some point.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-09, 05:21 AM
Yeah, Warlock options are insanely limited

Which is why mine will be running around in scale mail brandishing a rapier. He'll have extra hit points, healing salves, languages, and skills galore while still doing great damage with all his powers.

Hmm. I really don't see why you'd want, as a caster, to spend 3 feats on armor and weapons...or pump your Str to 13 in order to do so. But, meh, to each his own, I guess.

I'm planning on picking up Arcane Initiate (for Arcana & Ray of Frost - if I can't have Ghost Sound :smalltongue:) and Endurance @ 1st, then Focusing Thievery @ 2nd. From there, I'll buff my Initiative and attack rolls before grabbing Ritual Caster just before 11th. I want to play a tough off-skillmonkey who slaps curses on enemies ASAP.


...I'm sorry I missed the problem you were having.

:smallconfused: But you just said that you thought warlocks were "insanely limited".... Unless you mean that you don't understand why a warlock would want Triumphant Attack to apply to his spells. Why wouldn't a warlock want to impose a -2 penalty on all of an opponent's attacks and defenses for the entire encounter? Definitely seems to fit the star warlock MO.

Charity
2008-06-09, 05:22 AM
Also, you're forgetting that by the time you reach the higher tears, you will have had several stat boosts, all of which allow you to raise two stats at once. It's very possible to pump dexterity while still focusing on your primary stats.
If I wanted a Paladin with Heavy Blade Opportunist at 11th level, I could be an elven Paladin with 16 Str/11 con/15 dex/10 int/14 wis/14 cha at 1st level and already fill the requirements. The Epic Tier Heavy Blade Mastery is fulfilled without choosing to add points onto dex at any point. It'll be 17 at level 21 from the automatic stat increases alone. If you want Flail or Spear mastery, just get around to putting two points into dex at some point.

If you chose an elf then yes, though of course an elf doesn't add to your Str or your Cha, so that would be a somwhat unusual choice for a paladin.
Also putting your dex higher than cha or wis or con is again not exactly route 1 for a paladin, heck a paladin is unlikely to be able to meet the con requirements for hammers and at least there's half a reason for him have a decent con score.

Yes of course you can buid a character that can qualify for theses feats, but that is all they will be doing, a paladin has no use for dex.


Paladins have their own set of feats that Fighters can't take, like Channel Divinity and the Lay On Hands-enhancing feat
As do fighters in the heroic tier.
I was talking specifically in the paragon and epic tier, where paladins get... not so much.

Sebastian
2008-06-09, 07:27 AM
You don't have to spend skill points on things like Profession and Perform anymore--you can just do them. Skills are more versatile, not less.


actually, 4e don't have a proper skill system. All the skill check are level + appropriate stat, then you have some feats (of which classes get a number for free) that give you a +5 bonus to some check in certain fields and open some other options (not enough, IMHO). It is more like the proficiency system of 2nd edition, except more straightjacketed/formalized, than a real skill system. With some work you could even create new feat for skill like crafting or profession, all you need to do is define what these "skills" does.

Also, I think 4e feats are pretty boring, but I think that a lot about 4e is boring,races look all alike, powers do essentially all the same things, skills are practically non-existant, magic items are flat, monsters lack of everything but combat stat and hooks, rituals are the only thing almost interesting, but still a little too bland (incantations were better).
And , before some say it, yes, 3e had a lot (not all) of the same problems, the monster thing, for example,even if to a lesser degree but this don't make 4e good.

4th edition? meh, thanks.

Rattus
2008-06-09, 08:47 AM
Thats a shame, feats are one of my favorite things in 3rd edition-I can never get enough of them, so this is a pretty big blow to me, maby they'll introduce something else to make up for this...

As several people have already said, POWERS are now the defining aspect of your class. You get a much more varied selection, can CHANGE this customisation by core RAW. Feats are icing on the cake, not the bread-and-butter of your character from 3.x (which sucked, because you got so few, and had to wait for such a long time to get them).

All hail less important feats! Multiclass is actually appealing to me now..

Swiftpaw Fatfox
2008-06-09, 09:08 AM
Is Improved Grapple in 4ed?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-09, 09:14 AM
Is Improved Grapple in 4ed?

There is no grapple in 4e, just a simple grab.

Charity
2008-06-09, 09:19 AM
Grapple as you know it is not in 4e, you can grab which only renders your opponant immobile.

Ninja'd damn you Sam (I shouldn't have wasted precious seconds deciding whether or not to reply to Sebastians rant post)

Swiftpaw Fatfox
2008-06-09, 09:58 AM
So how will swallow whole work?

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-09, 10:02 AM
Hmm. I really don't see why you'd want, as a caster, to spend 3 feats on armor and weapons...or pump your Str to 13 in order to do so. But, meh, to each his own, I guess.

I'm planning on picking up Arcane Initiate (for Arcana & Ray of Frost - if I can't have Ghost Sound :smalltongue:) and Endurance @ 1st, then Focusing Thievery @ 2nd. From there, I'll buff my Initiative and attack rolls before grabbing Ritual Caster just before 11th. I want to play a tough off-skillmonkey who slaps curses on enemies ASAP.



:smallconfused: But you just said that you thought warlocks were "insanely limited".... Unless you mean that you don't understand why a warlock would want Triumphant Attack to apply to his spells. Why wouldn't a warlock want to impose a -2 penalty on all of an opponent's attacks and defenses for the entire encounter? Definitely seems to fit the star warlock MO.

Dude my caster is running around with more armor and hp than our paladin while still blasting everyone and giving them penalties. We don't get any great feats targeted simply for ourselves, but that just leaves us open to take every single versatile feat out there.

Oh and all the things that improve the warlock's curse death ability are actually pretty useful ever since they added that minion thing. Hell our first battle we went against like 20 some goblins.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-09, 10:03 AM
So how will swallow whole work?

Dude, this is a game for all ages :smallbiggrin:

ghost_warlock
2008-06-09, 10:11 AM
So how will swallow whole work?

Swallow Whole
Standard Action
Attack: Constitution vs. Reflex
Hit: (Constitution/3)d8 + Constitution modifier damage, and the target is swallowed whole (save ends).
Special: While swallowed, the target takes 1d10 damage per round at the start of its turn, can take no actions (other than saves) and can not be targeted by others. On a save, it returns to the space it was last in. If that space is occupied, the target returns to the nearest unoccupied space of its choice.

Swiftpaw Fatfox
2008-06-09, 10:14 AM
Dude, this is a game for all ages :smallbiggrin:

ok, doesn't answer my question though. Since grapple doesn't work the same as it does in 3.5 then does that mean the swallow whole ability works differently?

SamTheCleric
2008-06-09, 10:17 AM
There are a few creatures that get swallow whole as an ability. You have to do an Acrobatics (Escape) check or deal enough damage (light weapons only) to kill it.

Person_Man
2008-06-09, 03:20 PM
OK, so here's the first meaningful feat driven combo I've seen so far:

Frost Weapon: Deals Cold damage and adds Cold keyword to attack.

Lasting Frost: Any target hit with a power that has the Cold keyword gains vulnerable Cold 5 until the end of your next turn.

Wintertouched: When attacking an enemy vulnerable to Cold with a Cold power, you gain Combat Advantage.

Sneak Attack: Adds damage bonus to any attack once per round. (Not nearly as much as 3.5, but still good). Requires Combat Advantage.

Assassin's Point (level 29 daily power): 7(W) + Dex + double Sneak Attack damage if you have combat advantage.

For two feats and one magic item, Rogues and their party can now ignore the other "grant combat advantage" powers, and focus other better things.

Indon
2008-06-09, 03:35 PM
You asks why even bother with feats? It's just so you don't need to waste powers in minor things.

Why have minor things like that?

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-09, 04:18 PM
Why have minor things like that?

Because you get enough of them that they can add up to significant things.

Again, I make the comparison to Talent trees in Saga or d20 Modern. The bonuses are small...+2 with a skill check, +1 to attack in certain circumstances, so on and so forth. But, with a talent every other level, by mid-high levels you've developed some healthy, customized bonuses.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-09, 04:27 PM
Other fun things include having everyone take the cold feats, especially the Wizard, since of course, Ray of Frost is the Wizard's best attack period against most foes. Kiting for the win.

Eric
2008-06-09, 04:28 PM
Maybe a way of getting some feats that feel like it (I never really rated 3E feats either) is to pick "feats" that add features to the character that don't otherwise exist.

E.g.

Fighter: Multiple attacks (two un-buffed attacks rather than one)
Mage: Counterspell (No other actions, but check to see if you manage to counter the spell).
Cleric: Pray (Get your god to send in an outsider to help)
Thief: Infiltrate (Note where patrols go and avoid them)

and so on (e.g. Set against charge, Hovering, Calming prescence, avoid detection, ...)

And rolling d20 to do skill checks is IMO silly. The additions you get outside the d20 means that the difficult things have to be far too high or else a low-level/skill character can manage it. Which means that you HAVE to put all your skillpoints in X to have any chance of doing anything. E.g. the open locks quickly went up to 30 to make sure that only a trained thief can open them (else why have a lock). Unfortunately, to be a trained thief, you have to put all possible points on "open locks".

I've thought they should have used 2d6+skill+modifiers. Skill training makes a lot more difference then and a thief can branch out a little more.

And, since they're using d6 to time timered "spells" like dragon breath (where they could have damn well used a d20 and tripled the number to beat...), using a d6 or 2d6 is still in the game mechanic ideals.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-06-09, 04:32 PM
Because you get enough of them that they can add up to significant things.

Again, I make the comparison to Talent trees in Saga or d20 Modern. The bonuses are small...+2 with a skill check, +1 to attack in certain circumstances, so on and so forth. But, with a talent every other level, by mid-high levels you've developed some healthy, customized bonuses.

And why not replace it with one thing that doesn't suck so much? Why not just give everyone the right numbers to hit as much as you want them to hit as is, and then let them get cool abilities that let them do new things?

Jerthanis
2008-06-09, 04:39 PM
If you chose an elf then yes, though of course an elf doesn't add to your Str or your Cha, so that would be a somwhat unusual choice for a paladin.
Also putting your dex higher than cha or wis or con is again not exactly route 1 for a paladin, heck a paladin is unlikely to be able to meet the con requirements for hammers and at least there's half a reason for him have a decent con score.

Yes of course you can buid a character that can qualify for theses feats, but that is all they will be doing, a paladin has no use for dex.


Well... it adds to reflex defense and qualifies you for weapon feats... I'm not entirely sure why you think a paladin has NO use for dex.

And okay, so an elf paladin doesn't seem that great to you, despite the fact that it adds to wisdom, what about a Dwarf Paladin? They'll qualify for the hammer/axe feats at almost no cost, and it's thematically appropriate. If you're insisting on making it hard on yourself by doing a Human, Dragonborn, or Tiefling Paladin, realize that you are trading off your ability to easily gain the weapon feats by choosing those races, and if you get something equally good for choosing those races, well, that's your decision from a cost/benefit point of view, but don't try to make it seem like a Paladin will never reasonably qualify for ANY of the weapon-specific feats. Stats will go up plenty, and if you don't think the feat is worth even the slightest bit of investment in the stat related to the weapon you choose, it means the feat wasn't that necessary for your class or role in the first place and you passed it up as a conscious effort.

Charity
2008-06-09, 05:36 PM
Well i would suggest there are going to be a restricted number of feats that he could qualify for, and in doing so he will trade off his chance to hit (str/cha) or his potency (wis fuels a lot of his powers).
I think the prerequisits are too harsh, the cost does not represent the benifits (in my opinion) and thus I can forsee alot of people not qualifying and thus taking heroic feats in their place.
In truth only time will tell, and I hope I'm wrong, i like 4e but the feats beyond the heroic tier are too difficult to attain.

TheEmerged
2008-06-11, 08:24 PM
Having sample-built a few characters now, I feel more qualified to express an opinion here.

1> The initial multiclassing feats are valuable, perhaps a bit too valuable. Initiate of the Faith, for example, as written gives the person who takes it an additional daily power that's useful to almost any class. Having said that there are some cases where I wish they were more flexible (I wish the Rogue one gave you the choice of Stealth or Thievery, for example).

2> The later power swapping ones, not so much. I'm not saying they're bad, just that what you gain isn't generally as much as the opportunity cost of the feat. With Bob (the human wizard I created as my first attempt), I ended up swapping only one of his lower-leveled utility powers and nothing else.

3> You are getting more feats than you used to, so the value of individual feats would naturally go down. With Bridgette the Rogue, though, I found that she still didn't have enough feats, especially due to the new Skill Training feat. I ended up spending one of her attribute increases to bring her INT up high enough to purchase Jack of All Trades. And for all three, I was well into the Paragon tier before I ran out of feats I wanted.

4> Speaking of which, JoAT is just about nuts in the new environment. I was tempted to give even Dave The Fighter 13 INT to qualiify for it.

5> I won't be surprised if a lot of wizards end up taking AP: Leather. There is no penalty for casting in heavier armors now. Since warlock's also have leather proficiency there's almost certainly going to be some caster-appropriate leather now...

6> Powers have definitely taken the place feats did before. This becomes really obvious when you mimic leveling up a character.

Edit: amusing typo is amusing.