• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E [4e] just some feat ideas feedback request

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Lingering Flame - hit with [fire], if you hit with [fire] again before the eont, target takes ongoing 5 [fire]

Energizing Lightning - deal +1d6 with [lightning], target hit gains 3 thp after attack
Variants: gains +2 to hit; gains +5 to damage; gains an extra move action, etc.

Desensitize to X - deal +1d6 with [X], after attack, target gains resist 5 [X]
*[X] is a specific damage type

*all numbers are just initial gut feelings, or simply placeholders

Just looking for impressions and feedback on these.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

masteraleph

Explorer
Lingering Flame- that's an awful lot of hitting you have to do (twice) in order to add a minimal amount of damage (compare to Lasting Frost, where the vulnerability pings with each damage instance, rather than once per turn). It might be vaguely useful with the Master of Flame paragon path due to the E11, but even then getting 2 hits before making that attack is tough.

Energizing Lightning- The target of the attack gains 3 thp? That doesn't seem like a great trade off to me- why bother, when the average is 3.5 damage anyways? Unless you're saying 3 thp for the user, in which case, that's pretty solid, but not all that much better than Lightning Soul. +2 to hit is powerful. An extra move action is hideously powerful.

Desensitize- Why on earth would you take that deal?

In 4e, the way to deal lots of damage is with multiple damage instances. All of these feats fail to take advantage of that, or give you a piddling amount of damage from the first attack in exchange for hurting all of the later ones. I'm not sure what makes any of those worthwhile.
 

Lingering Flame - hit with [fire], if you hit with [fire] again before the eont, target takes ongoing 5 [fire]
Seems OK, for a 4e feat, which isn't saying much. Fiddly, doesn't actually have too much impact, but flavorful.

Energizing Lightning - deal +1d6 with [lightning], target hit gains 3 thp after attack
Variants: gains +2 to hit; gains +5 to damage; gains an extra move action, etc.

Desensitize to X - deal +1d6 with [X], after attack, target gains resist 5 [X]
*[X] is a specific damage type
What's the point of these two, exactly?
 

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Lingering Flame- that's an awful lot of hitting you have to do (twice) in order to add a minimal amount of damage (compare to Lasting Frost, where the vulnerability pings with each damage instance, rather than once per turn). It might be vaguely useful with the Master of Flame paragon path due to the E11, but even then getting 2 hits before making that attack is tough.
Seems OK, for a 4e feat, which isn't saying much. Fiddly, doesn't actually have too much impact, but flavorful.
I was looking at Astral Fire as a comparison. I am surprised by how weak you guys think it is, but I'm glad it isn't on the "break the game" scale.

Energizing Lightning- The target of the attack gains 3 thp? That doesn't seem like a great trade off to me- why bother, when the average is 3.5 damage anyways? Unless you're saying 3 thp for the user, in which case, that's pretty solid, but not all that much better than Lightning Soul. +2 to hit is powerful. An extra move action is hideously powerful.
All these bonuses are for the enemy. The idea is to gain a significant damage boost, but offering a trade-off - but since the "penalty" is back-loaded, in effect, you gain the benefit one extra time per enemy you engage with per combat.

As to the thp, would 2 be more appropriate?

Desensitize- Why on earth would you take that deal?
What's the point of these two, exactly?
The idea is to encourage attack rotation and allowing for non-specialists to play in the same ballpark. But I just realized it doesn't do want I initially wrote it to mean! Yeah, this version only works if you take 2+ of them...

More logical version : [choose X and Y, when you deal X or Y damage, deal +1d6 extra damage. After the attack, the target gains resist 5 X or Y, respectively]

In 4e, the way to deal lots of damage is with multiple damage instances. All of these feats fail to take advantage of that, or give you a piddling amount of damage from the first attack in exchange for hurting all of the later ones. I'm not sure what makes any of those worthwhile.
That's actually great to hear! I'm trying to bend the game into an approach that doesn't rely on "mutli-tap". I'm also very happy to see that I erred on the side of "weak".

Another goal I have is encourage and create more options that are stronger once combat is under full swing (an associated goal is to discourage nova-strikes in early rounds as much as possible on the system front - which falls under the previous umbrella.)

Thank you very much for your input.
 

I was looking at Astral Fire as a comparison. I am surprised by how weak you guys think it is, but I'm glad it isn't on the "break the game" scale.
Astral Fire and the like are also regarded as 'weak' - they shouldn't be, IMHO, but subsequent feat development rendered a lot of otherwise reasonable feats sub-optimal.

The idea is to encourage attack rotation and allowing for non-specialists to play in the same ballpark. But I just realized it doesn't do want I initially wrote it to mean
That's actually great to hear! I'm trying to bend the game into an approach that doesn't rely on "mutli-tap". I'm also very happy to see that I erred on the side of "weak".
Another goal I have is encourage and create more options that are stronger once combat is under full swing (an associated goal is to discourage nova-strikes in early rounds as much as possible on the system front - which falls under the previous umbrella.)
OK, I see the idea, I do like the idea of encouraging variation, but you might do it in an entirely bonus-oriented way.

Like, IDK:

Fire & Ice: When you hit an enemy with an attack that has the fire keyword, it gains vulnerable 5 cold, when you hit an enemy with a power that has the cold keyword, it gains vulnerable 5 fire. If you use a power that has both keywords, you instead gain a feat bonus to damage of +1/Tier. The vulnerability lasts until the enemy has taken extra damage from it, once.

Life & Death: As above, but Radiant & Necrotic.
 
Last edited:

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Astral Fire and the like are also regarded as 'weak' - they shouldn't be, IMHO, but subsequent feat development rendered a lot of otherwise reasonable feats sub-optimal.

OK, I see the idea, I do like the idea of encouraging variation, but you might do it in an entirely bonus-oriented way.

Like, IDK:

Fire & Ice: When you hit an enemy with an attack that has the fire keyword, it gains vulnerable 5 cold, when you hit an enemy with a power that has the cold keyword, it vulnerable 5 fire. If you use a power that has both keywords, you instead gain a feat bonus to damage of +1/Tier. The vulnerability lasts until the enemy has taken extra damage from it, once.

Life & Death: As above, but Radiant & Necrotic.
I can definitely see my way to something like that.

For martial types, to encourage multi-targeting :
Plenty to go Around - if you hit two or more targets this turn, you can deal 1[W] damage to an enemy within reach you have not attacked this turn as a free action. You cannot deal this damage more than once per turn.

Not Just for Chargers... - you deal 1d4 extra damage when you hit an enemy whom you were not adjacent to at the start of your turn.*
*I'm not trying to make [charge] even better... but I was trying to make a "skirmish" feat and this is the first one that made any kind of sense to me. Also, I'm sure there's a better phrasing for this.
 



I can definitely see my way to something like that.

For martial types, to encourage multi-targeting :
Plenty to go Around - if you hit two or more targets this turn, you can deal 1[W] damage to an enemy within reach you have not attacked this turn as a free action. You cannot deal this damage more than once per turn.
I like that.

Not Just for Chargers... - you deal 1d4 extra damage when you hit an enemy whom you were not adjacent to at the start of your turn.*
*I'm not trying to make [charge] even better... but I was trying to make a "skirmish" feat and this is the first one that made any kind of sense to me. Also, I'm sure there's a better phrasing for this.
Probing Advance: When you use your move action to shift or move less than your normal speed on your turn, your melee attacks that turn inflict +1d4 extra damage the first time you hit an enemy you were not adjacent to before you moved, but were adjacent to after the move.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I have been complaining that the game over rewards specialization for some time... only ever using 1 at-will... wonder if we could configure encouragement for that versatility.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I like that.

Probing Advance: When you use your move action to shift or move less than your normal speed on your turn, your melee attacks that turn inflict +1d4 extra damage the first time you hit an enemy you were not adjacent to before you moved, but were adjacent to after the move.

I think the Warlord could use a move action that models improved vantage point from moving around
 

Dammit, I had a bunch more and the forum ate 'em...
I have been complaining that the game over rewards specialization for some time... only ever using 1 at-will... wonder if we could configure encouragement for that versatility.
One thing the forum ate was a martial style that I was trying to make do that.

One of the feats had a benefit along the line of: When you use a martial attack power that you have not already used in this encounter, you gain a 1/Tier bonus to damage or to the distance you shift or move an enemy (your choice).

There was a bigger benefit for switching out weapons...
 

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Probing Advance: When you use your move action to shift or move less than your normal speed on your turn, your melee attacks that turn inflict +1d4 extra damage the first time you hit an enemy you were not adjacent to before you moved, but were adjacent to after the move.
... I started writing that I'd take out the bolded part as unnecessary - but then I figured out, that's the clincher that makes it charge-incompatible!

Well played!
 

MoutonRustique

Explorer
[...] There was a bigger benefit for switching out weapons...
Cool and evocative feat name - when you attack with a weapon from a weapon group you have not used during this encounter, you deal +2 extra damage for every weapon belonging to different weapon groups you attacked with since the start of the encounter.

Spike and Hammer - when you hit a target with a [pick], you can drop that weapon to gain a +5 extra damage bonus
to your next attack with a [hammer] or [mace] against the target before eont. Against an [object] or [construct], the damage bonus is +10 extra damage instead.

I am Legolas! - when you make a ranged weapon attack with a bow, your next melee weapon attack with a dagger made before eont deals +1d6 extra damage. When you make a melee weapon attack with a dagger, your next ranged weapon attack with a bow before the eont doesn't provoke opportunity attacks and deals +1d6 extra damage.

I was toying with the idea of restricting it to the same target, but then I thought "Naah! Legolas hits whomever he wants to hit."
 

masteraleph

Explorer
I'll note that a lot of these get into the fiddly bonus realm- the kind that cause long encounters because players are forever figuring out how much damage they're dealing and calculating/recalculating (basically: if it's hard to have a flowchart that says you do XdY + Z damage, with two or three variations, it may take too long).

Also- DMs should make it clear, if they're using these weapon swap feats, that they're limiting the number of free actions per turn. I'm kind of picturing a Ki Focus user with a Disembodied Hand/Rakshasa Claw using 5 different weapons by the end of Turn 2.

With "Spike and Hammer"- I'd actually make it something like: "When you hit a target on a weapon attack with a [pick], and are holding a hammer, roll an attack roll with the hammer. If it hits, the attack deals 5 extra damage. If that roll is a 20, deal 10 extra damage instead."

Also note that "+5 extra damage bonus" is mixing together two things- extra damage and a bonus to damage [rolls]. You should pick one- extra damage applies to damage regardless of whether there's a damage roll (e.g. Brutal Barrage), while a bonus to damage rolls requires a damage roll.
 

I've nothing /useful/ to say, but...

I'll note that a lot of these get into the fiddly bonus realm
Well, they are trying to be 4e feats... ;P

...4e feats got pretty situational and fiddly, already, and trying to encourage a style of combat/character - generalist - that the game, itself, has always tended to discourage, is probably going to have to double-down on that.

With "Spike and Hammer"- I'd actually make it something like: "When you hit a target on a weapon attack with a [pick], and are holding a hammer, roll an attack roll with the hammer....
Not a commentary on the feat, but just the name made me think of Hammer & Anvil (a Warlord power I've always liked), and "When you hit a target with a weapon attack using a hammer, and are also holding an anvil..." just popped into my head.

...sorry, everyone, please continue with relevant posts...
 

Cool and evocative feat name - when you attack with a weapon from a weapon group you have not used during this encounter, you deal +2 extra damage for every weapon belonging to different weapon groups you attacked with since the start of the encounter.
I assume you're familiar with the DDI Dragon 'Weaponmaster' Fighter build?

You could incorporate that. Weaponmaster's Gambit?

...

Combined Arms?
 

MoutonRustique

Explorer
Not a commentary on the feat, but just the name made me think of Hammer & Anvil (a Warlord power I've always liked), and "When you hit a target with a weapon attack using a hammer, and are also holding an anvil..." just popped into my head.

...sorry, everyone, please continue with relevant posts...
That... that is probably the most relevant post of the year! :)
[MENTION=6694750]masteraleph[/MENTION]
With regards to "fiddlyness", I'm banking on the rather large bonus (often +5) to help it be remembered. Also, I'm going towards feats that build playstyles - in these cases, since taking advantage of them is an active goal, I'm thinking they won't tend to be forgotten.

With "Spike and Hammer"- I'd actually make it something like: "When you hit a target on a weapon attack with a [pick], and are holding a hammer, roll an attack roll with the hammer. If it hits, the attack deals 5 extra damage. If that roll is a 20, deal 10 extra damage instead."
This feels like it would work very well as a power:

Free action (1/turn)
Trigger: you hit with a weapon attack using a [pick] and are wielding a [hammer]
Effect: make an attack roll with the hammer against the target. You gain a +4 bonus to this attack roll (increase by 2 per tier). On a hit, the triggering attack deals 5 extra damage, on a natural 20, the extra damage is 10.

*the attack bonus is there to allow easier access to the damage buff, and to reduce the gear requirements.
 

MoutonRustique

Explorer
New question : would a feat that allowed for Magic Stones (the druid power) to target a single creature be worthwhile if ...

a) you make a single attack roll, but deal 3d4 damage ?
b) you make three attack rolls and deal an extra d4 of damage for every hit beyond the first ?
c) you make three attack rolls and deal an extra d4 of damage and push 1 for every hit beyond the first ?

As an extra : what about if the power granted complete freedom when targeting, and every hit beyond the first against a target granted 1d4 extra damage and push 1 ? (sort of "even better" option c) )

Note : I'm keeping my considerations in the Heroic tier.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top