D&D 4E 4e, Non-Martial Characters, and Limited Feat Choices

[Spatula]

For all the talk of getting rid of the "build" mentality, the feats in the PHB pretty much put it back in. You've got to look ahead to what feats you're going to take and plan your ability score allocations to match. Like Wizards will want a 13 Cha (a stat they have no other use for) by the paragon? or epic tier to get that -2 save feat.

In some areas, the prereqs are a good thing. The armor feats mainly require Str & Con, meaning that yes you can make an armored wizard but you need to take hits elsewhere to get that. In other areas, they seem like a ham-handed method to keep people from dumping certain stats.

 

[helium3]

Wait. Neither of you have the books yet? Sheesh. Now I feel really special. I have all three.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Wait. Neither of you have the books yet? Sheesh. Now I feel really special. I have all three.

I had initially thought Cadfan had them and you did not. Shows what I can divine over the internet

Well, take a look at those powers then. I'm 99% sure that memory serves me on everything I said so far.

 

[helium3]

For all the talk of getting rid of the "build" mentality, the feats in the PHB pretty much put it back in.

When did they ever say they were getting rid of the build mentality? If they did, I imagine what they meant is that retraining is now so easy that you don't really have to worry about what your build is going to in several levels beyond making sure you have the right ability scores at the right time.

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, cut and paste at this point is too much work.

1. I'll have to disagree with you on Command. Inconveniencing one enemy for one round is worth it when you're only fighting one enemy, because that's like inconveniencing ALL enemies for one round. Think of it in terms of the party- one PC gives up his turn to cause the entire enemy side to lose its turn. Its worth it.

2. Alertness stacks with Jack of All Trades, though. And whether or not not granting combat advantage when surprised is worth it depends an awful lot on what sorts of foes are out there that get combat advantage in a surprise round. I have no idea about the answer to that.

3. It sucks that clerics don't get subclass abilities, even if the powers make the subclasses very distinct.

4. Using Dark Fury edited for radiant damage should be balanced. I can't see any problems there.

 

[Zurai]

+1 to hit can make you hit 10-15% more often.
You aren't interested in how many times you have tried to attack (100 in the examples). You are just interested in how many of the attacks actually hit, because that is what is going to affect how much damage you do over time.

You're measuring something different than what I and the person I was responding to were. The chance to hit is not increased by 15%. The number of hits might be. Number of hits != chance to hit. When you have a variable range of 20, +1 to the range is a +5% chance to hit. There's no other way to interpret it in the same framework. +1 = +5%.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ok, cut and paste at this point is too much work.

1. I'll have to disagree with you on Command. Inconveniencing one enemy for one round is worth it when you're only fighting one enemy, because that's like inconveniencing ALL enemies for one round. Think of it in terms of the party- one PC gives up his turn to cause the entire enemy side to lose its turn. Its worth it.

2. Alertness stacks with Jack of All Trades, though. And whether or not not granting combat advantage when surprised is worth it depends an awful lot on what sorts of foes are out there that get combat advantage in a surprise round. I have no idea about the answer to that.

3. It sucks that clerics don't get subclass abilities, even if the powers make the subclasses very distinct.

4. Using Dark Fury edited for radiant damage should be balanced. I can't see any problems there.

@Command--Daze doesn't actually take away their turn now. They still get a standard action if they want it. Also, it doesn't always work and it's usually very hard to hit a solo with it. And remember, it's an encounter power--sure, I'd take it if it was totally free for me, but another choice from that set of powers would be better for almost any Cleric. It has basically 0 use in encounters with regular enemies and minions. Finally, the Cha aspect of it is rather paltry, just the number of squares you slide them. The Daze is the main event regardless. As for Cause Fear, it's even worse (since it doesn't Daze).

It'd be a sweet power if it automatically worked (give up your turn to inconvenience the enemy for one turn), but it sucks (compared to other choices) because against a solo and their increased defenses, it probably will not stick, and against others it isn't really worth it.

 

[Regicide]

In some areas, the prereqs are a good thing. The armor feats mainly require Str & Con, meaning that yes you can make an armored wizard but you need to take hits elsewhere to get that. In other areas, they seem like a ham-handed method to keep people from dumping certain stats.

It's EXTREMELY ham-handed. The fact that you basically need to be a hero to be proficient with plate armour is down right silly. Historically plate-wearing knights were in the minority but it wasn't because they were exceptional physical specimens.

As for the armoured wizard, just wear the plate armour and take the -2 AC penalty for non-proficiency. The 3 or 4 feats for +2 AC isn't worth it even with the current weak feat selection.

 

[mlund]

So no, I'd say the advice they give is unwise to follow. As I mentioned above, the character could be reasonably effective without feats. It's annoying not to be able to pick any feats, but it doesn't mean she's weak.

So basically you min-max'd your stats in a particular way, against the advice of the description of the class and the stat-determination method designed into the module (KotS characters use the Array Method), to optimize in one direction and as a result you reduced your options for Feat Selection?

That seems perfectly fair to me.

I've never argued that my Cleric can't be effective--It's the constrained choices that are quite annoying.

Well, we've certainly got less to work with in a single PHB for 4th Edition than we did with 2 PHBs and over 2-dozen Splat-books in 3.5, but I think you may experience more "constrained choices" for feats than the average player due to your choice to ignore the advice of the game designers in the PHB and use a stat designed to be Primary / Tertiary as a Dump Stat.

What can I say? You probably enjoy better durability, skill checks, and effects of certain powers than a 13,14,10,11,18,14 Dwarf Cleric would, but he or she would have less constrained choices for feats. Actions have consequences.

- Marty Lund

 

[Cadfan]

It doesn't take away their entire turn, but it dazes them and knocks them prone, or over a cliff. That's a fair amount of inconvenience, if used wisely, and by wisely I mean "with a rogue in melee reach of the enemy." I know it doesn't do much against minions, but that's what Divine Glow is for. And I know it can miss, but so can any attack.

My intention is mix attacks which target Reflex and attacks which target Will. I'll probably eventually switch Command out for something else, but a per encounter ability to screw over an enemy by causing him to grant combat advantage to all of my allies, or moving him to a position he doesn't want to be in, or whatever it happens to be, is worth the slot it takes up. Maybe upon reading the PHB I'll find a level 3 encounter power that I like even more, but at the moment, it looks usable. Divine Glow for groups, Command for smaller numbers of foes, or for the one big guy in a mob of little guys.