Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[keterys]

Backstabber doesn't provide +5 damage in heroic. Neither does Light Blade Expertise. Neither does any of those defense feats provide +4 in heroic. Again, those bonuses are epic level.

They're heroic feats, available at level 1. They scale. Linguist could do the same, but they're competing for the exact same feat space - it's not like a PC reaches epic and has _less_ feats they want. There are _more_ better ones, and they start looking to get rid of older feats.

So, are you saying you can't find room for a feat you'd like amidst 12 other feat slots? Really? Really!?! You have 12 other, feats you simply MUST have?

No... there are no feats you "must" have, not even the ever vaunted expertise, but _easily_ 12 other feats that are more effective.

From a non-combat perspective, for instance, I've got Bard of All Trades and Glittergold's Gambit in heroic, fantastic mechanical boosts (that also happen to help in combat sometimes, of course). I'll probably want Fickle Servant well before Linguist, and that's not even in my top 6... and that probably opens up a few more feats on its own.

And this is my "talks his way through adventures" character, nevermind a more combat focused character. I'll still probably want things like Champion's Countenance, Weakening Challenge, Honored Foe, Hero's Poise, etc so I'm relatively competent at combat as well.

I mean, it's just hard to weigh "I can speak some languages that I could probably ritual or item around... and won't unduly harm the game if I can speak or not speak... or I can give my allies +5 to +9 to saving throws when I make a save, which could turn back a TPK." Of course, once you have that, well, you might want disciple of freedom and superior will, and others, to make it even easier to hand out the bonus... And that's just one random feat I could get that would be helpful in combat.

 

[Kzach]

By the time you have that +4 to a key defense, you have 12 other feats. There are not, for most builds, 12 feats that are huge bonuses to basic stuff. You got room for other feats in there.

This hasn't been my experience when building characters. I am always disappointed when faced with feat choices because there are all these 'cool' feats I'd like to take and then there are all the 'optimal' feats I feel I have to take. And I rarely have enough room to even fit all the optimal feats.

And you know what, even if I felt that these feats weren't needed to rebalance the system, I'd still take them because at the end of the day, I can roleplay my way through any encounter regardless of what is on my sheet, but I can't make the dice fall where I want, so I'm always going to lean towards making my character as effective as possible within the system.

Take away combat bonuses and suddenly all those 'other' feats become so much more attractive... and balanced.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but I can't make the dice fall where I want, so I'm always going to lean towards making my character as effective as possible within the system.

Take away combat bonuses and suddenly all those 'other' feats become so much more attractive... and balanced.

So basically Kzach... you're mad because you can't max out your character *and* have a bunch of rp feats. You're psychologically predisposed to squeezing every bonus out of the system so you never fail a roll... but then discover after doing that that you don't get to have any "fun" stuff. So you'd rather the game designers give all these bonuses to you for free that you currently have to pay feats for... but since they don't, the game system is "broken".

Maybe the problem isn't the game. Maybe it's just you.

 

[Dan'L]

At any rate... so I'm clear. Have you taken Linguist on any PC? Have you seen it taken by others and considered it a good use of a feat? I've got a changeling who I'd very cheerfully get more languages for who I haven't found a spot to take it yet, and I doubt I ever will... (though I might try to get more languages another way)

I can't speak for DS, but I've taken it twice for the same PC; the first time long before I considered taking an Expertise feat. I've played this PC from 2nd to 16th level so far, and it's the only surviving PC of the initial party.

Does my anecdotal evidence beat your anecdotal evidence?

-Dan'L

 

[keterys]

Nah, I was more curious specifically about DracoSuave's answer because he is a more aggressive rules and number cruncher, and he's the one who posted the strong "stop people from having their fun" rhetoric. (though maybe not in this thread, there are too many of these now - I'd consider combining but one has a poll, and frankly 1-2 can just slide away I hope)

I've got a bard in one game who has 6 or 7 extra languages (enough to have all of them)... I just used gems of colloquy to get there and I swap as necessary For my changeling, I'm pondering that new theme that gives all languages once they add that. But I certainly "needed" multiclass bard first (which gave me the Bluff skill training I wanted) and Bard of All Trades first (now I'm _much_ better at pretending to be random things).

And frankly, my experience is that linguist is far too binary of a feat - maybe it will matter once every six levels kinda thing. One of the problems with "Common" existing, I guess.

 

[Kzach]

So basically Kzach... you're mad because you can't max out your character *and* have a bunch of rp feats. You're psychologically predisposed to squeezing every bonus out of the system so you never fail a roll... but then discover after doing that that you don't get to have any "fun" stuff. So you'd rather the game designers give all these bonuses to you for free that you currently have to pay feats for... but since they don't, the game system is "broken".

That's an extremely distorted view of what I actually said. Maybe you missed the part where I said I felt I had to take those feats because they 'rebalanced' the system?

I also refer to what keterys said. It's simply always going to be a better choice to take the +X feat over the "I have pretty pink flowers in my bonnet!" feat.

As I said, I can roleplay through any encounter without rolling a single dice, so why take fluff feats when your character sheet only really matters in combat or skill challenges?

 

[DracoSuave]

Nah, I was more curious specifically about DracoSuave's answer because he is a more aggressive rules and number cruncher, and he's the one who posted the strong "stop people from having their fun" rhetoric. (though maybe not in this thread, there are too many of these now - I'd consider combining but one has a poll, and frankly 1-2 can just slide away I hope)

My rules lawyery is something I do as a thought exercise, not as my actual play style. When I run or whatever, I'm generally a LOT more laissez-faire. I want cool things to happen. I want to tell a grand story. I don't want to think every character's going to only take combat only options.

I can't remember what thread it was in, but someone said that they didn't have room for 'fun' feats after taking weapon focus, expertise, unarmored agility, DIS, etc, etc...

My response to that is going here. You don't NEED to take all that to be effective. The problem there is not the feats... the problem is you're CHOOSING to play bleeding edge in performance rather than wait a while to get things rolling. You don't NEED Weapon focus if you have DIS. You don't NEED Expertise if you have Superior Implement, You can get by with three of those feats and you'll be VERY effective. You won't be effective as Spike Minmaxer, but who cares? If you don't want to be Spike Minmaxer WHY ARE YOU PLAYING LIKE HIM?

You don't need all that crap to be effective. You can be effective with a lot less. Stop trying to push to the limit and complain you have nothing left for other things, when the problem is your insane need to push to the limit. The system works -fine- without you having to do that. The need is fictitious.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Feat taxes aside, I'm happy with the 4e feat situation.

I'm not a feat guy.

I like feats that I can apply to my character sheet, and then never think about again. Usually this involves superior profs, focus, etc, but sometimes I'll take a skill training.

As long as I can fill my slots with relatively balanced feats that don't require my continued attention, I'm happy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You don't need all that crap to be effective. You can be effective with a lot less. Stop trying to push to the limit and complain you have nothing left for other things, when the problem is your insane need to push to the limit. The system works -fine- without you having to do that. The need is fictitious.

It's because of that stupid comment that WotC made saying that they were aiming for 65 (or 70 or whatever it was) percent hit chance on average. So now we have this whole contingent of players who insist that they have to throw all the fun stuff away just so they can reach this mythical percentage. As though this percentage all of a sudden turns the game from bad to good.

And what's stupid, is this is all just averages. Depending on how your DM designs his encounters, he can put together all kinds of encounters with lower AC monsters, thereby getting his players to the mythic percentage without ever needing Expertise in the game. By the same token, you as a player could take the Five Feats of Doom to max out your combat effectiveness and reach the percentage... and your DM could F-you anyway by putting you up against nothing but higher AC monsters. Throw in some terrain that reduces player's attack bonus, and your DM can guarantee you'll never reach the mythic hit percentage regardless of how many "feat taxes" WotC introduces or you take.

But all of these points just get lost on people who just can't get past the idea that the game doesn't work like a precise computer program where everything comes out exactly equal each and every time.

 

[Kzach]

And what's stupid, is this is all just averages. Depending on how your DM designs his encounters, he can put together all kinds of encounters with lower AC monsters, thereby getting his players to the mythic percentage without ever needing Expertise in the game. By the same token, you as a player could take the Five Feats of Doom to max out your combat effectiveness and reach the percentage... and your DM could F-you anyway by putting you up against nothing but higher AC monsters. Throw in some terrain that reduces player's attack bonus, and your DM can guarantee you'll never reach the mythic hit percentage regardless of how many "feat taxes" WotC introduces or you take.

I think you need to spend some time on the WotC CharOp boards. Go there with the above statements in mind but be open to changing your mind in the face of the evidence and arguments given and I think you'll come away with a different idea of how the game works. And also maybe of the people on that forum.