D&D 4E 4E - What Rules Need Staying?

[Li Shenron]

Do you really, really think that the existing feats are roughly equivalent in power? IMHO, it couldn't be farther from the truth.

They are not the same in absolute power, but IMXP almost all the feats we're using are good enough for someone (they don't have to be good for everyone). Some argue that a combat feat is 10 times more powerful than a metamagic feat. Except that the truth is that they are not comparable at all with each other, because a (Straight) fighter-type will never need a metamagic feat, and an arcane caster will rarely use a combat feat.

I also hate the completely irregular prerequisites that feats have.

The only thing I dislike is that feat chains are too narrow at the base. Power Attack and Dodge are prerequisites for too much stuff, to the point that you see 90% of the melee fighters taking PA. That is indeed boring and could be better by making feats that have different possible prerequisites instead of a fixes prerequisite.

What I'd like to see is a feat system, that either require a minimum (character) level to take or a minimum number of other feats belonging to the same 'group'. Something similar to the feat groups in 'Iron Heroes' or the maneuvers from the 'Tome of Battle'.

Both of these could be done, if they never do inpublished books that it's because of a design policy somewhere in WotC, but the feat system itself doesn't prevent at all having these kinds of prerequisites.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think it's true... Prerequisites are there exactly so that if the designer wants to make a feat restricted, it can be done easily.

Except that designers rarely do this. Sure, in the PHB, there are feat trees. Most of the splat books only have a few feat trees and they tend to be more generic. For example: Prerequisite: Draconic Heritage is the prereq for 4 or 5 feats. Only the most powerful feat there has 4 Draconic Feats as a prereq.

This also still doesn't address issues like Item Creation being 10 or 12 feats now. What a mess.

That's not a problem. We just game with a few books and there's no mess at all. I am a DM and I do not bother browsing hundreds of feats for NPCs... I can if I want, but if I don't want I can just choose common feats, like those that buff basic things (Toughness, Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus, Great Fort etc.).

It's more of a problem for PCs. Players buy books as well and they want to use the "cool new feats" in the books they buy.

But, many of the newer books have unbalanced feats. PHBII is a prime example where non-Fighters can get better fighter type feats than PHB Fighter feats.

Just look at Improved Toughness versus Toughness. No prereq for Improved Toughness.

That's not a balanced feat system.

 

[Anguish]

I may be in the minority, but I don't relish the idea of removal or nerfing of Attacks of Opportunity. As a player, I like being circumspect about the consequences of my action choices.

It might be reasonable to not require AoO for trip, grapple, disarm, and the like, AoO for movement and casting should stay behind.

One thing I'd add though is a full-round action called a 5-foot-crawl. You defensively scramble backwards as your sole action for the round, without provoking. Being prone in someone's threatened space is a touch overly limiting. Sacrificing a whole round to get out of the situation is expensive, especially when the threat might just 5-foot after you and full-attack.

 

[Sithobi1]

Base fort of +2 isn't a prereq? Okay...
At higher levels when mage-types get the fort save required(generally 6th or later, because of PrCs), the opportunity cost is far higher than at first level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Base fort of +2 isn't a prereq? Okay...
At higher levels when mage-types get the fort save required(generally 6th or later, because of PrCs), the opportunity cost is far higher than at first level.

7 out of 11 core classes can get it at 1st level, 4 out of 11 can get it at 6th (without PrCs). Sure, this is a delay for some classes, but not most classes. It's also the potential for 6+x as many hit points as Toughness. Saying that a few classes have to delay to get it does not make Improved Toughness balanced with Toughness, not when it can have over 6x the effect (and 2x the effect when arcane casters and rogues finally do get it). It's sure as heck not balanced for the 7 classes that can get it at 1st level.

 

[pallandrome]

Rule Zero.

 

[Li Shenron]

That's not a balanced feat system.

I just think that it's not a balanced FEAT

The system itself (not the same as the "set" of published feats) is what I want to stay, as I summarized in the first post. Actually I am completely sure it will stay (although they could be renamed "talents" or something else), it was a very good step forward compared to previous editions' lack of "add-ons" ability.

The system was not used properly by designers, that bloated it several times with "meh" ideas (thinking about those +2/+2 skills-feats).

That actually makes me think that the death of an edition is most than anything caused by too much supplementary material :\

 

[Drowbane]

That actually makes me think that the death of an edition is most than anything caused by too much supplementary material :\

RPG history has proven this time and again, especially D&D. I suspect we'll be having a similiar conversation in 7-10yrs.

And yes, I will buy 5e (unless it sucks)

 

[king_ghidorah]

I think feats were a reaction to capabilities introduced into computer RPG games in the late 90s and have been drastically overcompensating.

Spell casters used to be able to just craft items once they reached the appropriate levels. Now, they cannot without the appropriate feats.

Many of the abilities that are in feats should be made class abilities, not feats. Now that Pandora's box is opened, it will never close again.

Funny, but I thought feats were a response to advantage/disadvantage mechanics used since the 1980s in many role-playing games from Hero to GURPS to the World of Darkness games....

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I think they needed to jsut revise 3.5 and not have a 4e or it should have been a revision and 4e in name only.