Are 4e feats far less exciting than 3.x?

[ExploderWizard]

Powers are the meal. Feats are garnish.

A 4E character can take almost any feat without feeling that " I better take feat X so I can get feats Y and Z or I will suck."

The racial restrictions are kind of pointless. If its a racial trait then it should be a racial feature.

 

[Halivar]

Now this is something I'm getting sick of hearing. No it does not! A +1 to hit is a 5% better chance - no matter how rare it is.

A level 10 fighter in 3.x has a BAB of 10. A level 10 fighter in 4E has a BAB of 5. Monster AC values, however, are about the same.

So, yes, the +1 does matter.

As for damage, in 3E, a fighter adding 40 damage to his weapon dice doesn't give a crap about a +1. The 4E fighter who does add 5 damage to his weapon dice does.

 

[Jhaelen]

I like the 4E for what they are.

In 3E they were the key to make or break a character; the choice of feats was one of the most crucial choices about your character. Choosing wisely increased your power level a lot, choosing badly could ruin a character.

In 4E they're just nice little tweaks to round out character concepts. You don't really need them in terms of sheer power but they help to define a character. The only downside is that most of them aren't exciting - except the multiclassing feats, of course, those are awesome!

 

[WalterKovacs]

The racial restrictions are kind of pointless. If its a racial trait then it should be a racial feature.

It some cases it's a way of balancing things. To keep races as something that can be done without any level modifiers, the "base" race is pretty plain. The racial feats allow you to, at the cost of taking other feats, be more "iconic" of the race. Similar to racial paragon levels.

The race+class combos are definitely something that shouldn't be racial features, they are very specific ... like letting a dwarf be an axe wielding rogue. In many of those cases it's racial powers being used in a specific way that indicates a training that is not only class specific, but race specific. It's not a racial feature because while all eladrin can teleport, learning how to use it as part of a charge is likely something that requires specific training.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It some cases it's a way of balancing things. To keep races as something that can be done without any level modifiers, the "base" race is pretty plain. The racial feats allow you to, at the cost of taking other feats, be more "iconic" of the race. Similar to racial paragon levels.

I totally get the reasoning on a balance level. The issue is that how does a racial trait become "iconic" if most of the members of the race do not have the trait? A typical member of a race has no class or levels (or feats perhaps) so how do they have these traits if they are feats?

 

[Cadfan]

But usually racial feats aren't iconic. They're modifications to traits already possessed.

Like Elven Precision, for example. Or the feat that makes a dragonborn's breath weapon larger, or the ones that increase the effects of Infernal Wrath.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I totally get the reasoning on a balance level. The issue is that how does a racial trait become "iconic" if most of the members of the race do not have the trait? A typical member of a race has no class or levels (or feats perhaps) so how do they have these traits if they are feats?

Because most of the "iconic" parts are things you see in battle. And if something is in battle, it does have the "equivalent" of levels/feats/etc. In 4e, monsters aren't built the same way as PCs ... but the monsters you fight are at similar levels ... so if they have certain thngs you'd need feats to get it isn't that weird. Iconic comes from fighting iconic monsters ... not from interacting with the non-combatant versions of those monsters.

Most racial abilities are similar to other feats (special training) but involve training that is tied to a racial ability. For example special axe/hammer training for dwarves. Which racial traits that would be considered iconic are available via feats? There are the "subrace" feats from forgotten realms, but even those seem to be something like a "training" more than an inborn trait.

 

[MrMyth]

One thing I don't care for with 4e are the feats. Feats were probably the greatest thing ever devised for 3.x, but in 4e I find the choices to be kinda uninspiring. I get the whole shift to more of a powers-based system, but whenever I level my Elf Ranger and I need to pick a new feat, I'm like meh.

I was really hoping the void would be filled by Martial Power, but the pre-reqs in there are kinda ridiculous. OK, I need to be an Eladrin male that's born on a Tuesday who has a glowing green mohawk and uses a kukri? I think there are like 5 feats my character could choose from. I'm ridiculously exaggerating this, but shouldn't such detailed customization be saved for like Elven Power?

Anyone else find 4e feats lacking?

Not especially. I'm actually an enormous fan of the idea that I can have my ranger spend a few feats to become a diplomat, without feeling like doing so renders my character useless because I didn't take the 'must have' feats.

Minor bonuses = greater customization and greater variety of characters. I much prefer that to 3rd Edition, where feats were either so good as to be required for certain builds, or so terrible as to almost never be worth taking.

 

[TerraDave]

my experience with 3e is that the boring feats are plentiful, they're just rarely taken in play. I'd be much more likely to take a skill focus or similar in 4e because the tradeoff is that much less.

If i were comparing only 3.5 phb to 4e phb, i'd say that any feat that isn't a hidden class feature is as unexciting as the average 4e feat.

" "

 

[Miyaa]

I don't think the 4th edition feats aren't any less exciting than in 3rd edition. Whether or not they are less useful to the overall character creation class than they were in 3.5 is probably more important question to discuss than excitement. If we use the analogy that if the Powers are your cake and the Feats are the frosting, why have the requirement that your character has to have a feat? Shouldn't they be more essential than garnish to your meal? To me, garnish is like the description of your magical weapon and its name. It's not essential that your +1 battleaxe be called the Axe of Janus. But it is essential that your character needs a particular feat.