Legends and Lore: Uber Feats eat Prestige classes and Paragon Paths or give +1 to ability

[Blue]

A friend of mine hates "boring math feats". You know, +X to hit or damage or save or whatever. Raising abilities is just that but more indirect. On the other hand, it's very effective, especially with bounded accuracy.

I think we'll get a bunch of low to mid level characters where you can either be effective (+ability until you reach 20) or thematic (feats for options), but not really both.

 

[Blue]

Oh yeah, if you have an even ability score, your feat choice does absolutely nothing for you until you raise it again. Havign a dead feat is a lot worse then having a dead level, because of the opportunity cost. You need to give up all these uber feats now, jsut so in a few more levels you can pass them by again for a +1 to hit/damage or something.

That sort of meaningless-choice no-reward is NOT going to retain new players. It's boring.

 

[Kraydak]

Note that the article is somewhat internally inconsistent. +1 to a Stat does not scale (actually in reality it does, the wrong way, it gets weaker the more you have due to the cap, which you'll hit). That means that "complicated" non-stat feats which scale in power with level and the "simple" feats which don't will not be balanceable in any meaningful way. This is on top of the problem that unless you can make use of all your feats simultaneously, having more feats than you can make use of simultaneously is a very weak advantage, which screws Fighters and Rogues over.

 

[Dausuul]

Do not want.

This was my reaction, to the exact words.

At this point, though, I only have one requirement for feats: Make them optional. Feats have the potential to be really cool, but for whatever reason, WotC seems unable to realize that potential in D&D. Feats in 3E were a bloated mess. Feats in 4E were the same. Feats in 5E are now boarding the train to Bloatville, and I want off.

But if different classes are going to get feats at different rates, it's hard to see how they can be optional. I've mostly been quite happy about what I'm seeing in D&DN, but this is really bad news. Here's hoping they reverse course on this one.

 

[Szatany]

it gets weaker the more you have due to the cap, which you'll hit

No it doesn't. It gives you identical benefits until you reach the cap, at which point you can't take it any more.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Hm, I wonder if you could make the ability score increases scale..

So from level 1 you can increase an ability by 1, maybe at level 9 you can increase an ability score by 2 and by level 17 you can increase an ability score by 3.
At level 1 you choose between effectiveness in to-hit, damage, certain class features or broadening your character with a new feature. At level 9 I expect the feats to have increased in power (whether that's through a chain or not is not clear) - but notably if you spent time broadening your character you can now go for effectiveness in your primary ability. By level 17 we're talking only 1 or 2 feat choices left, but you could catch up if you haven't or choose another powerful feat.
I'm just thinking that if you start with an even primary ability, say 16, you won't want +1, but you can upgrade to 18 at level 9. If you start with an odd number, say 15, you can upgrade to 16 right away, and then again to 18 at 9th - the trick is to make the most optimised character start with an even primary ability (I think) so that by that point you're even, and to disallow taking the same upgrade twice.

 

[Dausuul]

After a bit more thought...

The real problem here is that Mike Mearls is misunderstanding a large part of the anti-feat position. Part of what people hate about feats is the necessity for searching through a giant list o' feats when creating a character or leveling up... especially when the "best" choices, the ones that are the most useful in play, inevitably turn out to be boring math feats.

And the proposed fix? Add six more boring math feats. This is not a solution.

No it doesn't. It gives you identical benefits until you reach the cap, at which point you can't take it any more.

No, Kraydak is right, because (I assume) you aren't limited to one ability score. You'll boost your primary stat until it hits the cap. After that, you can start working on a secondary stat, but since it's a secondary stat the benefit per point won't be as great. Max that out and you can start on a tertiary stat, with even smaller benefits. Et cetera.

 

[Szatany]

No, Kraydak is right, because (I assume) you aren't limited to one ability score. You'll boost your primary stat until it hits the cap. After that, you can start working on a secondary stat, but since it's a secondary stat the benefit per point won't be as great. Max that out and you can start on a tertiary stat, with even smaller benefits. Et cetera.

Oh ok, that I agree with. I thought Kraydak meant the diminishing returns are present within a single ability score.

 

[Szatany]

Hm, I wonder if you could make the ability score increases scale..

Since feats are supposed to vary in power, maybe the feat that increases AS will as well. Like... if taken at levels 1-10, it gives +1, but if taken at 11-20, it gives +2.

 

[howandwhy99]

After a bit more thought...

The real problem here is that Mike Mearls is misunderstanding a large part of the anti-feat position. Part of what people hate about feats is the necessity for searching through a giant list o' feats when creating a character or leveling up... especially when the "best" choices, the ones that are the most useful in play, inevitably turn out to be boring math feats.

QFT, I don't want skills or feats in my D&D game. They are just not getting it by making Ability Scores into skills and Class Abilities into feats. It's a baked in game design ideology that's great if that is what you want, but not if you don't. I'm happy they've at long last added some "exploration" mechanics, but character generation hasn't moved over yet.