The redefinition of feats.

[Lord Pendragon]

To make sure fewer unintended combos happen, feats now are both limited in scope and limited in who can take them. Rather than having to playtest a feat as if all classes to take them, you just have to run the numbers against those who can take the feat.

I'm not usually one to criticise the designers. I continue to play 4e, so I'm happy with the game as a whole, and find no reason to really get worked up over those parts which may not be perfect.

That said, if what you say is true, it strikes me as merely a means to cut corners. "We don't have the time/money/resources to balance this feat for all martial classes, so we'll just test it for one class, of one race, of one specialization and ship it like that." Sure, it's balanced. It's now also worthless to 99% of folks reading it.

I also wonder whether the side-effect of being able to publish more books of feats wouldn't then play into it. Was this unintended, or did the designers intentionally super-specialize feats in order to inflate the number of feats they can publish/sell?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Keep in mind that you are referring to the feats in Martial Power. The feats in there (and Arcane Power) are specifically supposed to be for Martial classes, hence more restrictions.

I think you may be missing my point. I agree with your above statement. However, even if you are a martial class, you're unlikely to find more than a handful of feats in Martial Power that you even qualify for. Let alone actually like. Each feat doesn't just require you to be a martial character, but a specific class of a specific race, sometimes of a specific sub-specialty of the class as well.

At some point, it seems to me, you're no longer dealing with "feats" as we know them. Might as well include some optional racial abilities in the write-up of the races, and optional rogue-only abilities with the rogue write-up, rather than come up with a dozen "feats" that are only available to one race/class/specialization combo, and useless to everyone else.

So using that limited set of data, I wouldn't so much call it a trend of the design, but instead that the book is just really specialized/focused on that specialty.

If it were only a matter of spellcasters not being able to take martial feats, and vice-versa, I wouldn't have the feeling that I do. But it's far more than that.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

this is similar to how multiclass feats are kind of "super feats" and therefore you can only have one).

This is another thing about the new "feats" that adds to my feeling about them morphing into class abilities. Multiclassing into another class via feat is supposed to grant you access to feats which require that class, no? Yet almost all of the feats for a class also require a class ability, thereby locking out multiclassers...

 

[Hereticus]

Powers really allow one to do X these days. Feats it seems are more there to augment them and also to not out shine them.

Excellent description, this bears repeating.

4.0E powers are better than any previous feats.

 

[frankthedm]

I also wonder whether the side-effect of being able to publish more books of feats wouldn't then play into it. Was this unintended, or did the designers intentionally super-specialize feats in order to inflate the number of feats they can publish/sell?

It might not be provable, but I suspect that myself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure the new concept is a bad one. Feats in 4e customize things you already have. The high number of prereqs is just there so that they can have a limited effect with their customization (e.g.: they work on a specific THING, not multiple things).

I do think there's room for bigger, broader concepts of feats giving access to different things. The "ritual caster" or "multiclass" feat kind of has this idea: the feat grants access to a subsystem your character usually wouldn't get. When you look at stuff like the Dhampyr, you see feats giving you racial abilities, too.

They can go further with this idea, I think, but it's also nice to have a simple adjunct-system for modifying powers the way feats work now, too.

There's room for everybody, no?

 

[pawsplay]

In theory, existing feats could be playtested, renamed, and republished for different classes. I doubt WotC would do anything that bald, but it does seem likely that many new feats will be re-interpretations of abilities that have been allowed for other classes.

 

[Crothian]

It might not be provable, but I suspect that myself.

I'm not so sure. Even at the end of 3e there were good feats being made and still plenty of ones that were never published.

 

[Remathilis]

Before, Feats did one of the following things

Provide you with a new ability (cleave, whirlwind attack)

Provide you with static bonus (weapon focus, toughness)

Provide you a nonstatic bonus (power attack, combat expertise, dodge)

Alter the way something works (weapon finesse, combat reflexes)

The first option is solely now filled by powers (though some powers dabble in the other features: beguiling tongue (wlk 2) and fleeting ghost (rog2) for example)

4e has used all the latter to define feats. Admittedly, they were the most boring uses of feats (though exceptions occur) so that now Pcs don't chose between knowing cleave or Imp. Bullrush, they learn them from separate pools.

Fine by me, I guess. Though it DOES make them blander.

 

[Hjorimir]

I actually like the limitations/prerequisites of 4e feats as they help the races feel different (if just a bit). I like the concept of an elven fighting style as opposed to a dwarven one, for example.