Are feats selections too limited?

[SkredlitheOgre]

In some campaigns, yeah-- now pathfinder/d&D isn't quite as bad as say, Exalted, in this area, but depending on teh group or DM, a non-optimized build can sometimes be a major handicap.

Honestly? I don't buy that. I have never, in twenty-some odd years of gaming "optimized" a character for anything and it's never been a handicap to me or to the group (to the best of my knowledge). But, like you said, that depends on the group.

For example, my PF group is currently playing Rise of the Runelords and I'm playing a 9th level Monk! Who's an Elf! With only the Core Rulebook! Which, if you believe the hype, couldn't be optimized even on a bet and is a horrible choice overall and I should just mercy-kill the character and start over. And yet, I'm having a blast. Because we're not all about combat.

And personally, I think optimization is over-rated because "optimization," in my experiences with people who have done that, tend to lead toward one-dimensional characters. But again, that's just my observations and is not meant to imply that that is the case forever and ever, amen.

I think you are putting meaning to some of these posts that isn't intended. No one here is saying anyone is doing it wrong.

EDIT: Okay, since it looks like cgraph might be saying you are doing it wrong , let me clarify and say by no means am I trying to say anyone is playing this game wrong.

Duly noted!

I think what gets me about discussions like these is not people telling me I'm "doing it wrong" (because I'm not), it's that people are adamant (tine?) there are "bad choices" I can make when taking feats. Personally, I think that's a load. If I want to take Run and Quick Draw (as an example from earlier in the thread) because it fits the character that I want to play, then how is it "wrong" or a "trap?" Will they give me a bonus to attacks and damage? No. But that's okay, because that may not be what my character is about.

If I'm playing the face and things could go bad, I may want to be the first one with my weapon out. Quick Draw makes that a free action. Makes sense to me.

If I'm playing a character that needs to deliver a message to the King/General/Grand Poobah and I'm being chased by Orcs, then Run gives me that extra 30 ft. per round (or 60 ft./round with my Monk).

I guess my point is here just because it doesn't for you (generic you, not IronWolf specifically), don't tell me it's a "bad choice" or a "trap" because it may just be what I want.

 

[Mr.E_Danger]

Personally, I would love to be able to take a feat every level. I think it's fun choosing what to pick and seeing how it affects play (very little or a lot depending on what you choose). However, part of the fun is picking feats within the constraints of the game.

As an example, I play a druid in a carrier crown campaign. Right around lvl six or seven, we were knee deep in werewolves. Our party had very little in the way of silver weapons, so as you can imagine, battles were touch and go sometimes. When i hit lvl seven and went to grab a feat i was sorely disappointed to see that Eldritch Claws (natural attacks are treated as silver/magic for DR purposes) was juuuust out of my reach (required a +6 attack bonus and i was at +5).

So this rather seemingly arbitrary +6 prereq made all the difference. what difference would it really make though? As a Dire Tiger, without the feat i could deal at max damage, 15 per claw attack (2 of them) and 19 for the bite, minus 10 per attack because of DR, so 19 damage total. If i had the feat however, the damage would have been 49. so not insignificant.

As another example, our group had a monk in it. He was especially proud of his initiative bonus and was most of the time the first person to go. I am not sure, but I think he did take improved initiative. To me, using a feat slot on that feat seems silly, when there are plenty of other choices. To him however, it was what he wanted for his character and going first was his top priority.

In some campaigns, yeah-- now pathfinder/d&D isn't quite as bad as say, Exalted, in this area, but depending on the group or DM, a non-optimized build can sometimes be a major handicap.

What is the difference between a non-optimized build and an optimizer who always rolls incredibly low? The optimizer may have the best build he can make, making his attack modifier as high as he possibly can, not to mention maxing out damage. if he rolls a 1 or a 2, he still misses. At the same time, an un-optimized person may have half the modifier, roll decently, and still miss. I'm sure in the middle of a boss battle, when everyone's lives depend on taking down the bad guy, these misses can be very frustrating/major handicap.

 

[Kaisoku]

There was never any design decision to make the game "purposefully imbalanced." That is a misunderstanding of what Monte Cook was writing about in his infamous "Ivory Tower Game Design" article. I won't try to explain what he was saying, because anyone who really wants to know can Google the subject themselves, but I roll my eyes every time I see this misrepresentation echoed.

While his article was mostly about not helping the player learn the game ("mastering" the game was promoted), I can't help but read the following without thinking the way I did:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.[/FONT]

Article

Specific game choices being made deliberately better than others is exactly what I was talking about, and what I feel detracts from a game that is more about collective story-telling than competitive play.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Feats were a marvelous idea for character customization, but they quickly grew out of hand-- they fill too many niches, because they range from your basic proficiencies to expanded class features to combat maneuvers to martial arts styles.

My last D&D/Pathfinder character actually took a level of Monk specifically to Dark Chaos Shuffle all of the stupid weapon proficiencies the class gets into Draconic feats.

I don't know how to fix it.

 

[cgraph]

What does it mean to have a "non-optimized build" and how does it become a handicap?

It's not as bad as some games (Exalted again, is notorious for this) but say if you ahve a non-optomized build and the party is made up of people who focus more on optimizing the character design, what is a challenge for them could be deadly for your character and what is a challenge for your character may be a walk in teh park.

Again, this is very dependent on the GM style-- in some cases it's not a problem at all.