-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Feats, Feats, Feats
- Thread starter C4
- Start date
Colmarr
First Post
The Essentials feats that are replays of earlier feats (eg. Heavy Blade Expertise v Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade) and Superior Will v Iron Will) are significantly better than their predecessors.
I'm not in favour of a general ban though. You need to consider each feat individually, and I'd further be inclined to limit rather than ban.
I'm not in favour of a general ban though. You need to consider each feat individually, and I'd further be inclined to limit rather than ban.
renau1g
First Post
I'd avoid campaign specific material in your setting, there are a lot of problems with the backgrounds from Scales of War (offering the equivalent of Toughness for free), some problems with the FR ones (same thing), and the Dark Sun themes have a few decent ones and might not fight your flavor.
I wouldn't ban the Expertise feats, what I do is grant a +1 bonus at 5th and 11th and 21st to cover the math fix part of teh feats. If someone wants to spend a feat to re-roll 1's on their axe attacks go for it.
One feat combo I'd watch out for is Wintertouched/Lasting Frost. With a Frost weapon it gives you CA (+2 to hit) and an extra 5 damage each hit (watch out for rangers especially with this)
I wouldn't ban the Expertise feats, what I do is grant a +1 bonus at 5th and 11th and 21st to cover the math fix part of teh feats. If someone wants to spend a feat to re-roll 1's on their axe attacks go for it.
One feat combo I'd watch out for is Wintertouched/Lasting Frost. With a Frost weapon it gives you CA (+2 to hit) and an extra 5 damage each hit (watch out for rangers especially with this)
Last edited:
I like what the dragon mark feats bring to the game so I allow them, but they have to be gained through story. They are campaign specific so perfectly understandable if you don't like their implications.
I don't use expertise feats. They essentially get it for free.
I don't like what pacifist healer does to the game, so I disallow that, but I haven't had anyone ask to play a cleric so it hasn't come up.
Other than that I haven't had to muck with any feats.
I have some issues with Surprising Charge, Polearm Gamble, Versatile Master, Lasting Frost, and probably a half dozen others I'm not thinking of right now, but not enough to ban them.
I don't use expertise feats. They essentially get it for free.
I don't like what pacifist healer does to the game, so I disallow that, but I haven't had anyone ask to play a cleric so it hasn't come up.
Other than that I haven't had to muck with any feats.
I have some issues with Surprising Charge, Polearm Gamble, Versatile Master, Lasting Frost, and probably a half dozen others I'm not thinking of right now, but not enough to ban them.
Xyrlove Woodsoul
First Post
I only use the Marks in the Eberon setting, and even then, I make them race specific (as noted in the Eberon material). If you don't, I guarantee, every leader at your table will always end up with Mark of Healing, and every player that targets primarily Will, will all have the Aberrant Mark of Madness.
I ban all the Expertise feats (due to the whole "feat tax," reasoning), but I let players stilll take the Essentials ones, if they want the other part of the benefit. Instead, I give everyone a +1 feat bonus at 5/15/25 to all attacks. I give Improved Defenses for free (due to the whole "feat tax" reasoning). For feats like Gnome Phantamist and Draconic Spellcasting, I simply give a +1 untyped bonus to hit with x with those (wihout going up +1 per tier), but I keep the damage bonus intact (I don't mind some extra benefits for specialty builds).
And I ban the Epic Defense feats.
In all, I think the entire feat situation in 4ed is a big mess; most feats are either, next to worthless, or "no brainers." Thus, you end up with a lot of players having almost the very same exact feats.
I'm thinking about banning the Avenger feat, Painful Oath, because one would have to be an "idiot" not to take it. Same goes for Superior Implement (accurate) for implement users. I've banned the latter.
Superior Will is starting to aggravate me, because even though I give Improved Defenses for free, I dont have one player who hasn't taken that feat for the side benefit (granted, they are all at epic).
I myself have a major problem with any "auto-take feats," (for non-specialty builds), including, class feats, like, Painful Oath for avengers, and there are like 5 "auto-take" feats like that for swordmages. And quite a bit of them for standard wizards.
In my opinion of design theory, all feats should be, mediocre.
Again, I find the feat situation in 4ed to be an utter catastrophe. And I'm far from alone in my assessment. I even read a blog by one of the deigners suggesting that ALL feats be banned. . . I've had a headache ever since.
I ban all the Expertise feats (due to the whole "feat tax," reasoning), but I let players stilll take the Essentials ones, if they want the other part of the benefit. Instead, I give everyone a +1 feat bonus at 5/15/25 to all attacks. I give Improved Defenses for free (due to the whole "feat tax" reasoning). For feats like Gnome Phantamist and Draconic Spellcasting, I simply give a +1 untyped bonus to hit with x with those (wihout going up +1 per tier), but I keep the damage bonus intact (I don't mind some extra benefits for specialty builds).
And I ban the Epic Defense feats.
In all, I think the entire feat situation in 4ed is a big mess; most feats are either, next to worthless, or "no brainers." Thus, you end up with a lot of players having almost the very same exact feats.
I'm thinking about banning the Avenger feat, Painful Oath, because one would have to be an "idiot" not to take it. Same goes for Superior Implement (accurate) for implement users. I've banned the latter.
Superior Will is starting to aggravate me, because even though I give Improved Defenses for free, I dont have one player who hasn't taken that feat for the side benefit (granted, they are all at epic).
I myself have a major problem with any "auto-take feats," (for non-specialty builds), including, class feats, like, Painful Oath for avengers, and there are like 5 "auto-take" feats like that for swordmages. And quite a bit of them for standard wizards.
In my opinion of design theory, all feats should be, mediocre.
Again, I find the feat situation in 4ed to be an utter catastrophe. And I'm far from alone in my assessment. I even read a blog by one of the deigners suggesting that ALL feats be banned. . . I've had a headache ever since.
Last edited:
Agreed. I would be interested in reading that, any chance you can find a link for it?
WalterKovacs
First Post
Personally, I'm mostly open in terms of my games.
For the game I'm currently running (Dark Sun), the big "DM's choice" area is magic items. If the PCs do want to buy/build magic items ... it's common as an auto yes (and there aren't many common items), with the added bonus of 'all consumables are common' (if they really want to spend their money on consumables instead of a permanent item, sure). If they want something specific that's uncommon or rare, it's up to me to decide in each situation, and so I can make sure to avoid stuff like frostcheese or radiant mafia (which would be hard anyway with no divine magic).
I would probably laugh and tell someone to pick again if they went down the Kulkor path (especially if they are doing it with someone who is doing it solely for the level 16 class feature), but I'm guessing that may get resolved before they are anywhere near paragon.
The Dragonmarked feats are a special case, but I'm allowing them in as a "twisted by defiling" side effect (with the basic rule that I have to approve it, and it's at most 1 per person). For best control of their effect it should probably be limited to Eberron, especially as you can then sort of make them racial feats (or allow them for 'out of house' characters, but play it for the storyline benefit of being 'marked' for death by one of the houses.
The best bet is probably to instead keep an eye on the feats being picked and try to make sure that the power between characters isn't too far off. So effectively banning weak feats (i.e. don't take weapon expertise: axe when you can take axe expertise, don't take the tiefling feat that gives +1 feat bonus to two NADs vs. Improved Defenses, etc).
For the game I'm currently running (Dark Sun), the big "DM's choice" area is magic items. If the PCs do want to buy/build magic items ... it's common as an auto yes (and there aren't many common items), with the added bonus of 'all consumables are common' (if they really want to spend their money on consumables instead of a permanent item, sure). If they want something specific that's uncommon or rare, it's up to me to decide in each situation, and so I can make sure to avoid stuff like frostcheese or radiant mafia (which would be hard anyway with no divine magic).
I would probably laugh and tell someone to pick again if they went down the Kulkor path (especially if they are doing it with someone who is doing it solely for the level 16 class feature), but I'm guessing that may get resolved before they are anywhere near paragon.
The Dragonmarked feats are a special case, but I'm allowing them in as a "twisted by defiling" side effect (with the basic rule that I have to approve it, and it's at most 1 per person). For best control of their effect it should probably be limited to Eberron, especially as you can then sort of make them racial feats (or allow them for 'out of house' characters, but play it for the storyline benefit of being 'marked' for death by one of the houses.
The best bet is probably to instead keep an eye on the feats being picked and try to make sure that the power between characters isn't too far off. So effectively banning weak feats (i.e. don't take weapon expertise: axe when you can take axe expertise, don't take the tiefling feat that gives +1 feat bonus to two NADs vs. Improved Defenses, etc).
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I would not recommend doing that... just ban feats and backgrounds that are camapign specific...
this would be ok, i guess...
Thanks for your replies!
I should have mentioned that Expertise and NAD boosting feats are already replaced by an actual math fix.
I should have mentioned that Expertise and NAD boosting feats are already replaced by an actual math fix.
If not for the few feats that have a really noticeable character impact (skill training, ritual caster, etc), I'd probably agree. But a lot of players seem to love feats, and a few even take the ones I mention, so I'm just trying to cut out the really bad apples.
Similar Threads
