D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[FrozenNorth]

Okay, none of the feats you posted mentioned giving up an attack to utilize them, so I did not assume it was a general rule that applied to all feats.

Are there any feats that do not work by costing you an action?

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the feats that do not cost an action fall into one of two categories:

• a +1 that doesn’t stack with other feats in an extremely restricted circumstance (look at me! I’m an expert climber, I get a +1 to Athletics checks to climb only);
• an option that a lot of DMs probably would have allowed anyway that is now gated behind a feat (invisible enemy? I stab him with a dagger and let go of the dagger to track him. Do you have the high level fighter exclusive feat to do this? No? Too bad).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, 4e works well with huge set pieces if that's your thing. But it just requires a non-boring environment.

Actually, it didn’t even require a non-boring environment. Wizard cast Cloud of Daggers (or Druid cast Spike Trap), Fighters pushes enemies into it.

Another point that hasn’t been emphasized enough is you chose several at-will attacks, so you had a toolbox of cool tricks you could bring out as necessary. Maybe a push isn’t useful in this fight, but a cleave might be.

A final point that 4e did well that I think is a shame that 5e didn’t retain was that certain powers had special effects depending on the weapon you were using. Hammers and mauls had proning and stunning effects, spears had immobilizing and puncturing effects, etc.

 

[FrozenNorth]

First off, any game that obsesses with balance to the degree that it meticulously shuts down any avenue to gain that extra +1 or +2 bonus is a game I consider inherently distrustful of the GM. The contrast is 3E or 5E: games that happily will supply you with a magic item that gives large, almost game-breaking effects. A game like that trusts the GM to have a will of their own to know which bonuses are appropriate for their campaign. Both 4E and PF2 come across as incredibly cautious, defensive and controlling in this regard. Most magic items in these editions are incredibly bland and boring because the devs don't dare give out any really impactful bonuses and effects.

I disagree with this. Because of degrees of success, the system makes it very hard to stack bonuses, because once bonuses get out of a tight band the math falls apart. I don’t think this is because Paizo distrusts GMs, I think they like the degrees of success idea and it limited subsequent design.

However, to my dismay I've found that Paizo has reserved almost the entire space for flexibility for their own use. In other words, I find over and over again that the thing I allow for free turns out to be allowed by a feat down the line (possibly for a totally different character class). I find this very unfriendly to gamesmasters, who apparently are expected to load the entirety of the thousands of feats into their brain and account for each and every single of them before making an off the cuff decision. It comes across as the game not trusting the GM: every little interaction (including all variants) are locked down by the game, telling the GM "this particular shortcut or flexibility is appropriate for a level 16 Bard" (or whatever) "but certainly not your level 3 Fighter, or the feat would have been made available that much earlier".

I agree with this part however, though I don’t necessarily agree with the connection with 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of the feats that do not cost an action fall into one of two categories:

• a +1 that doesn’t stack with other feats in an extremely restricted circumstance (look at me! I’m an expert climber, I get a +1 to Athletics checks to climb only);
• an option that a lot of DMs probably would have allowed anyway that is now gated behind a feat (invisible enemy? I stab him with a dagger and let go of the dagger to track him. Do you have the high level fighter exclusive feat to do this? No? Too bad).

Ugh. I've just looked into Pathfinder 2e feats and skills, but only scratching the surface. I decided to start with Intimidate because it's very easy to mess a skill like that up, and it's car-crash bad.

There are two basic uses of Intimidate - Coerce and Demoralize, and they both have the Auditory, Concentrate, Emotion, and Mental tags (and both can be used untrained) - and Coerce has Exploration (i.e. it takes time) and Linguistic. Both Emotion and Mental are fair enough (you can't intimidate something without a mind).

But the others?

• Concentrate? "An action with this trait requires a degree of mental concentration and discipline." So if someone has a hangover and a toothache they might not be able to concentrate enough to coerce?
• Auditory? "... An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or otherwise produce the required sounds." So the fighter can't flick blood off his blade and glare after a particularly brutal kill to attempt to demoralise? And somehow you must be able to speak but they don't have to hear you if you want to demoralise someone? Now this is looking like a spell to me - you need the magic words but they don't have to hear them.
• Linguistic? (Coercion only) "An effect with this trait depends on language comprehension. A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target understands the language you are using." So you're telling me that (without a feat) I need to share a language to make the kobolds I've let live start digging? Handing them a pick, pointing at the seam of ore, and putting my hand threateningly on my sword won't get the point across?

And Demoralize is pretty terrible as a use of an action too - it inflicts Frightened 1 - which gives the target -1 to all checks and DCs for one round. Even Bull Rush is generally better.

And then I looked up the first level feats for Intimidate. Remember these are all optional abilities to add to the skill that cost resources:

• Group Coercion (L1) - may coerce more than one target when coercing (how many depends on your level of training). If I'm a Master Intimidator how do I also need to spend a feat to do this?
• Intimidating Glare (L1) - may glare to demoralize people. If you do replace the auditory tag with the visual one and you don't get penalties for not sharing a language. Um what? If I'm skilled at intimidation I need to spend an actual feat to be able to intimidate someone with my attitude?
• Quick Coercion (L1) - you can coerce in a round instead of a minute but not in combat. That's a pretty weak feat - but I can see it as going above and beyond something the skill should do for you.
• Intimidating Prowess (L2) - Requires STR 16 and gives +1 to intimidate checks or +2 if you have a STR of 20+. Also you don't need to share a language to demoralize. Well that's weak-sauce.
• Lasting Coercion (L2) - Coerce has for some arbitrary reason a hard-coded cap of one day for how long it works. This feat (and not skill) raises it to one week, or a month if your skill is legendary although provides no extra bonus.

That's three feats that should just be folded in with intimidation skill (group coercion, intimidating glare, and lasting coercion), one that's a flat +1 if you are strong or +2 if you are very strong rather than e.g. using your strength rather than charisma modifier to intimidate people.

It's also five feats you can spend on Intimidation and that don't work for anything but Intimidation by level 2.

 

[Charlaquin]

Great for you. Your anecdote is noted, but this isn't personal.

The way you look at it makes me believe 4E was attractive to you. Unfortunately, your views weren't shared by nearly enough gamers to stop 4E from failing, and I fear PF2 too.

My entire point here is exactly that people like choices that matter, meaning numbers, actual probabilities, and I came here to discuss why it might be that Paizo didn't learn this lesson from the fate of 4E.

4e was abandoned for a wide variety of reasons, but focusing on real effects instead of numbers was not one of them. In fact, 4e was very popular among new players, the core issue was that it had an intake problem due to being unappealing to established players. If there had been something like Critical Role at the time, raising public awareness and interest in D&D and showing interested first-timers real examples of how to play, it would probably still be going strong today.

 

[Charlaquin]

an option that a lot of DMs probably would have allowed anyway that is now gated behind a feat (invisible enemy? I stab him with a dagger and let go of the dagger to track him. Do you have the high level fighter exclusive feat to do this? No? Too bad).

Personally, I think DMs fret about this kind of thing too much. In my opinion, what Feats like this do is give you a codified way to accomplish the thing. That shouldn’t prevent other characters from accomplishing the thing through non-codified means. The Feat allows the player to say “I use this Feat. Here’s what happens.” Players who don’t have the Feat have to describe what they’re trying to accomplish and how and rely on the DM’s adjudication. That’s my view, anyway, though I know a lot of DMs who are not so comfortable with that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Personally, I think DMs fret about this kind of thing too much. In my opinion, what Feats like this do is give you a codified way to accomplish the thing. That shouldn’t prevent other characters from accomplishing the thing through non-codified means. The Feat allows the player to say “I use this Feat. Here’s what happens.” Players who don’t have the Feat have to describe what they’re trying to accomplish and how and rely on the DM’s adjudication. That’s my view, anyway, though I know a lot of DMs who are not so comfortable with that.

This depends both on the feat and the way the game is written and run. A feat, for example, that allowed a mermaid to breathe air would imply that other mermaids couldn't. And some parts of games, like the Pathfinder 2 Intimidate I used above can be pretty hard coded.

In general I agree with you - but some games this applies to much more than others.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Personally, I think DMs fret about this kind of thing too much. In my opinion, what Feats like this do is give you a codified way to accomplish the thing. That shouldn’t prevent other characters from accomplishing the thing through non-codified means. The Feat allows the player to say “I use this Feat. Here’s what happens.” Players who don’t have the Feat have to describe what they’re trying to accomplish and how and rely on the DM’s adjudication. That’s my view, anyway, though I know a lot of DMs who are not so comfortable with that.

I get your point, but the example I gave also illustrates the expected power level of a high-level Fighter-exclusive feat.
If your reaction to reading the feat is “I thought they could do this anyway”, then feats don’t really feel impressive (which fits into Zapp’s point: that you have a lot of options that don’t really feel meaningful).
As a racial ability, dwarves can take a feat to use their reaction to gain a +1 circumstance bonus to a saving throw against a spell. The dwarf must take their reaction before they roll. The feat is called “Ancient-blooded dwarf”.
So, you need to take a feat and use your reaction to gain a +1 bonus, only to spells, and that +1 doesn’t stack with any other circumstance bonuses you might have. Truly, you must feel like you have the blood of ancient dwarves flowing through your veins.

 

[Undrave]

If I'm a Master Intimidator how do I also need to spend a feat to do this

You're probably not a Master Intimidator if all you have is training in the skill then.

You have some points I agree with (non verbal intimidation should be possible, but just at a penalty compared to your usual roll, for exemple) but others just feel like you're not seeing the system as a whole.

How many 'feats' do you get a Level 1 anyway?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You're probably not a Master Intimidator if all you have is training in the skill then.

The skill levels are literally "Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary". It calls you a Master Intimidator for the third level of training in the skill.

You have some points I agree with (non verbal intimidation should be possible, but just at a penalty compared to your usual roll, for exemple) but others just feel like you're not seeing the system as a whole.

The silly part of the rules is that you have to intimidate verbally but you are at a penalty if your target can't hear you.

How many 'feats' do you get a Level 1 anyway?

Which type? I think at first level you get an ancestry feat and your background gives you a specific skill feat. Some classes (fighter for one) give you a class feat.

At every even level you then get to pick a class feat and a skill feat. At first level and every four levels after that (5th, 9th, etc.) you get an ancestry feat, and at third level and every four levels after that you get a general feat.