Here's where your point diverges from the norm of the gaming public. Not everyong cares about "mechanically better" feats and if you don't need them, many people don't take them. It's when they feel they need them just to survive and accomplish things where they become a bigger deal.
If it's an obvious choice then it's broken
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Here's where your point diverges from the norm of the gaming public. Not everyong cares about "mechanically better" feats and if you don't need them, many people don't take them. It's when they feel they need them just to survive and accomplish things where they become a bigger deal.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I have to spread xp...
But this is it in 1. In fact in the expertise thread when I posted some of our players feel there are half a dozen needed feats I was told I was blowing thing out of proportion but people feel that way... And they shouldn't
My 1st sup weap prof in 4 e is my resourceful lord who took kurkri... And it is because the culture I am from uses them... So that is what I use. I then decided I would fight with 2 of them and pick up 2 weapon fight and 2 weap def... Wit h means 3 of my feats make up a fighting style that could be better with 0 feats... Longsword and shield gives better to hit equal damage and equal AC... But I have yet to feel underpowered
I have also seen players take multi buys in linguistics well other players are rangers with ficus and expertise in that d12 sup bow... Then the play with the languages doesn't get mad when the ranger owns combat. But when the tribe of shifters doesn't speak common and so the elf ranger is useless boy does he complain... Funny how that works
OMG no.
The system itself is flawed. How can you blame the DM for that? If you don't take these feats, you're creating a character that is a burden to everyone and isn't very fun to play. Forget peer pressure, I have no interest in playing a character that never freaking hits anything. I'm not playing "Peasants & Peons".
There isn't one right way to play the game. Some of the games I play are 90% combat, even some of the games I run. If my players are going to sleep when there is no initiative, I'll run more combat to keep them engaged. So combat feats apply 90% of the time. That's not a smaller fraction of the game. I don't have to worry about anyone getting linguist or skill focus in these games. But even comparing combat feat to combat feat, pound for pound, you get more mileage out of some feats than others.
The system needs to cater to multiple styles of play. I don't take issue with the existence of feats like Linguist and Skill Focus, I'm sure there are games where the DM makes those feats come into play all the time. But I don't see combat heavy games to be too far from the norm, and would like to see more meaningful options in this sort of tactical game rather than being pigeonholed into the same superior choices every time. Yes, I want to have my cake and eat it too.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I call BS... like totaly
I don't under stand you at all...I can play a character that takes NO feats... and I STILL will not be a burden. How ever every feat I do take (no matter what they are) will add something to the game.
My Dragonborn sorcerer will at level 5 take
1st Arcane Familiar
2nd White Lotus Riposte
4th Superior will
you may remember those are the ones you wanted (more or less)
then at level 6 pick up skill power
at level 8 I will make a power game choice and take Dracoinci spell casting...
at level 10 I will pick up Champion of the Bloody Circle
now come 11th level there is no reason I have to trade out any of these feats... so I will take 1 paragon feat... and keep my heroic as is.
tell me why this is not an awsome build?
it isn't even my build...it is yours...
[sblock]====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Dragonborn, Sorcerer
Build: Dragon Sorcerer
Spell Source Option: Dragon Magic
Dragon Soul Option: Dragon Soul Fire
Dragonborn Racial Power Option: Dragon Breath
Dragon Breath Key Ability: Dragon Breath Strength
Dragon Breath Damage Type: Dragon Breath Fire
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
STR 19, CON 12, DEX 10, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 20
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 15, CON 12, DEX 10, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 16
AC: 19 Fort: 19 Ref: 16 Will: 24
HP: 69 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 18
TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +11, Bluff +15, Insight +10, Nature +10, Streetwise +17
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +5, Athletics +9, Diplomacy +10, Dungeoneering +5, Endurance +6, Heal +5, History +8, Intimidate +14, Perception +5, Religion +6, Stealth +5, Thievery +5
POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Dragonborn Racial Power: Dragon Breath
Sorcerer Attack 1: Arcing Fire
Sorcerer Attack 1: Burning Spray
Sorcerer Attack 1: Tearing Claws
Sorcerer Attack 1: Lightning Breath
Sorcerer Utility 2: Dragonflame Mantle
Sorcerer Attack 3: Flame Entanglement
Sorcerer Attack 5: Palest Flames
Bluff Utility 6: Faulty Memory
Sorcerer Utility 6: Sudden Scales
Sorcerer Attack 7: Blazing Bolts
Sorcerer Attack 9: Prime the Fire
Sorcerer Utility 10: Maiden's Waking
FEATS
Level 1: Superior Will
Level 2: Arcane Familiar
Level 4: White Lotus Riposte
Level 6: Skill Power
Level 8: Draconic Spellcaster
Level 10: Champion of the Bloody Circle
ITEMS
====== End ======[/sblock]
The character is only a burden if the other players and DM have agreed to overpower their aspects of the game in comparison to yours, and they don't give a rat's ass that you're behind. If you don't take Expertise but everyone else does... and the DM purposely makes encounters in Epic where even with Expertise the ubers still need 15s (and thus you need an 18 and feel as though you "never freaking hit anything")... that's a flaw of YOUR game. Your fellow players basically are saying that their personal character builds are more important than the group's as a whole... and your DM is saying that it's more important for him to challenge their characters only, and not the party as a whole. Your DM is being lazy if he's catering the encounters to the uber-characters. And yes, that's a flaw of the DM, not the game itself.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
in my case it is all about the DM... In matt games I expect 80+% combat...and out of game role playing will make up some of the rest...even with metagame knowladge
when kurt rund a game it will be deadly... op everything into survival... he is a killer DM
when ross runs don't be suprised if it looks more like a 'game of throwns' plot with skill challanges glore, rp alot, and we might go 2 whole levels never rolling intiative
when jon runs...well i think I may run away...he is givin us all these pwer ups, and already told us we have to follow his story...and he is useing NPCs from vedio games... oh god I am scared...
When I DM I aim to be middle of the road...I want atleast 3 fighte per tier to be deadly and need alot to get throught...and I want atleast 3 encounters per level to be combat... and I want atleast 1 encounter per level to make people HAVE to think out side the box... and atleast every 3 levels I want an RP encounter that needs the use of people who did not op for combat... AND I try to make sure rituels are the best choice atleast every other level... I try to run 1 in 4 encounters as a skill challange...atleast
I also try to tie it to my players...if I have a Cleric with 3 cure utlities and pacifist healer and hhealersmercy...I want a chance for him to shine so I will throw 2 or 3 encounters to drain surges... If on the other hand I have a tac lord with alot of bonuses and extra attacsk, I will make sure to throw a VERY High AC targetat the players so he can shine
I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "smaller fraction of the game". What I meant was that some feats apply to a smaller cross-section of the game mechanics, whereas others apply more universally.
For instance, Prime Strike grants a ranger a +1 bonus to attack rolls only when no other creatures are within 3 squares of the target. Whereas Expertise grants a +1 bonus to all the ranger's attack rolls with his specific weapon. Thus many people would claim Expertise is a "boring" feat and Prime Strike is an "interesting" one... because you can't use Prime Strike as often so it seems more "special", and presumably because Prime Strike has a "fluffier" name, since it describes the smaller cross-section of the game mechanics it applies to.
And that's what I consider to be absurd. Players try and justify why Prime Strike is fluffier by going all into their "character concepts" and saying things like they want their ranger to play like an avenger and always trying to pull their target away from the group... and thus Prime Strike helps facilitate that. However, they are completely ignoring the fact that they can still play their character exactly the same way even if they have Expertise instead of Prime Strike, since in both cases each feat still gives them nothing more than a +1 bonus to attack. The only difference is that Prime Strike FORCES the player to play his character by his concept of pulling his target away from everyone else... whereas Expertise means he has to force *himself* to play that way instead. And apparently, some people want the game to force them to roleplay their character concepts... not roleplay them just because roleplaying is fun.
Last edited:
It is actually my build, and you're right, it is an awesome build, particularly for the game where we get free superior weapon/implement at level 1, free expertise and free weapon/implement focus at level 5.
Maybe it's psychological, and the existence of the offending feats make them hard to resist. If they didn't exist, I probably wouldn't even be looking for them. Since they do, I see them as diluting my options.
So again... that's not a "flaw" of the game. That's technically a "flaw" with you. As you say, it's "psychological".
Similar Threads
