Obsolete Feats

[AbdulAlhazred]

The 'is it a power' question has gotten more and more tangled over time. Pact Boons were never powers in PHB1, nor were other class feature effects of a similar nature. WotC soon saw the error of their ways in that regard and you notice that even PHB2 is much more likely to express things in the form of a power block. When the DDI Compendium was put together MOST effects were given a power block type format, but not all. Each new iteration of the rules has trended more in this direction. The RC for instance describes a number of things as powers which were simply basic effects before, like Opportunity Action.

The problem of course is that this does lead to inconsistent interpretation of the rules. Then the further question is what actually ARE the official rules? The RC would take precedence over PHB1presumably, as would errata. The DDI Compendium OTOH is what? CB is what? LFR (at least at one time, dunno how this has been amended) lists them both as rules sources, but nowhere is there any indication made by WotC as to precedence between conflicting sources.

So, nobody can really say if X, Y, or Z are or are not powers when they have been presented both ways. Since RC doesn't have class or race features/powers in it there's no help there. Basically you'll have to decide at your table which source is governing, or just pick whichever interpretation you like out of the 'official' choices and go with it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Ryujin]

I think a big part of the problem, is that we have powers and Powers. When you create an expectation that a word carries a certain meaning, you have to be very cautious in the use of that word.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, we have things that have been presented as both 'Powers' and as things that aren't powers, but I'm assuming are what you mean by 'powers' with a small p. The real nut of the thing is the PHB1 was just not all that consistent and the presentation wasn't always thought through too well.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, we have things that have been presented as both 'Powers' and as things that aren't powers, but I'm assuming are what you mean by 'powers' with a small p. The real nut of the thing is the PHB1 was just not all that consistent and the presentation wasn't always thought through too well.

Yes, that's what I meant. The word "powers" is used in the description of what a Pact Boon is, but the clear intent (to me at least), is that they aren't Powers (capital "P").

 

[Alphastream]

If we are talking intent, the most recent intent seems to be making these powers. But, even with Essentials it isn't always that way. Intent is easier to argue as unclear than anything else.

 

[eamon]

If we are talking intent, the most recent intent seems to be making these powers. But, even with Essentials it isn't always that way. Intent is easier to argue as unclear than anything else.

There's also consistency. A power is merely "something you can do" (as opposed to properties which are always on). I'd argue it'd be best for all rules elements to consider that notion synonymous with "power". So either consider all voluntary actions powers (e.g. including move, shift, charge, etc.), or better yet ban the use of the word "power" as a modifier to when a rule applies.

Honestly, I expect the only reason such rules apply to "powers" is that it's easier to write that way. It reads uncomfortably to gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls on "something" with the necrotic or psychic keyword - you want to fill in the blank, and preferably with something clear and concise - hey power!

In general, to prevent exactly this kind of confusion, it's best to never define rules purely in terms of intrinsically meaningless concepts. The raison d'etre of the term "power" it a metagame concept to be able to clearly communicate how the game functions. For that it works excellently, but involving a purely metagame concept in the mechanics resolution is just confusing.

Anyhow, it's a PHB 1 feat; it's hardly reasonable to expect perfection, but neither should one read it as "meaningful rule" when it shows rather more resemblance to "design oversight".

 

[Ryujin]

I would tend to think that, since mechanics IS metagame, it's best to incorporate clear meanings as to terms. As to filling the blank, in something like a feat description, it seems to me that "something you can do" is frequently extraneous.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

List updated.

 

[Tallifer]

List updated.

Many thanks for this extremely useful list.

I subscribe to the Dungeons & Dragons Insider, but I usually do not use the new character builder, because it is so prone to crashing whenever I try to make a cutepdf. However with your list I can pencil in the appropriate changes to my old style character sheet.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes, that's what I meant. The word "powers" is used in the description of what a Pact Boon is, but the clear intent (to me at least), is that they aren't Powers (capital "P").

Aside from headings, which are always capitalized, power is never capitalized in 4e terminology, so this feels like pointless semantics.

Also, for those arguing that a "class feature power" doesn't count as a normal power should read the How to Read A Power section in the PHB.

The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (or the fact that it’s a class feature).

Emphasis mine. If it comes in that format (they later put the Pact Boons in that format), it's a power. Otherwise, it wouldn't use the power format.