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

[DandD]

Feats in 4th edition are like the missiles and the speed up to your Vic Viper spaceship. Powers are the options and the laser.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yes they are but that is how it should be.... powers are your cool stuff, feats just tweaks.

What annoys me about 4E feats is the lack of options for some classes (e.g. Wiz) vs others (e.g. martial) and the many feats which are very class/race/abil score restricted.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Yes, they shouldn't be as good as 3.x feats. Yes the cool stuff is in the powers, I know all that. But you can't tell me they couldn't have made them more interesting. So I take it everyone is content with minor bonuses that aren't very interesting?

What annoys me about 4E feats is the lack of options for some classes (e.g. Wiz) vs others (e.g. martial) and the many feats which are very class/race/abil score restricted.

Exactly where I am coming from...

 

[Filcher]

Yes, because they are a different mechanic. In 3.5 Feats = Powers.

 

[WarlockLord]

Feats in 4e=teh boredom. Woohoo! Random +1 bonus! And it's one of my "exciting things every level!"

 

[Halivar]

Hey, now! Don't poo-poo that +1. It means more in 4E than it did in 3E.

For me, multiclass feats are pure awesome. They are far more powerful than your typical 3.x feat.

 

[IceFractal]

Hey, now! Don't poo-poo that +1. It means more in 4E than it did in 3E.

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 +1 to damage might be worth more, if 4E monsters had less HP - but in fact, they have more HP. If anything, even something like Weapon Specialization means less because the 3E character got to apply that +2 damage multiple times in a round.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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 +1 to damage might be worth more, if 4E monsters had less HP - but in fact, they have more HP. If anything, even something like Weapon Specialization means less because the 3E character got to apply that +2 damage multiple times in a round.

+1 to attack rolls means a lot in 4E where you expect a 50% chance to hit. A +1 to attack rolls meant nothing in 3E where you had an attack bonus of +35/+30/+25/+20 and you were attacking something with AC 28.

As for damage, its not the single featt, but the stacking. Here is a level 22 Fighter who is currently a major NPC in my current game:

Damage:

+7 from 24 Str(Base 16 + 6 from levels and +2 from Demigod)
+5 from a +5 Reckless Bastard Sword
+3 from Weapon Focus: Heavy Blades
+4 from Kensei Focus
+10 from using the At-Will on her Reckless Bastard Sword
-----------

This adds up to +29 damage on every hit. She also specializes in area and multiple attacks, so that +29 goes a long way. She even has +18 damage when she fires her Longbow.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think so, but I think most of the feats I was impressed by in 3e were basically class features or new ways to use the rules (reserve feats) anyway, so I'm not sure 3e feats excited me that much.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Anyone else find 4e feats lacking?

Not really. What I did find though in 4E is that selection of feats wasn't critical and that what a character could do (at least in combat) was defined more by their powers than their feats. As such, feats just aren't that important anymore. In 3E, feats were a good carrot and they could give you something special to do. In 4E, this is obviously less so; powers have taken over this role.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise