Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[Kzach]

I think it's been a fairly well-established and well-argued situation in the 4e system where feats have blurred the line in terms of what they bring to the table. They seem to have lost their way, or perhaps they've found it?

The idea of this poll is to present the argument that feats should never contain attack or damage bonuses. That feats should be about refining a character theme or present interesting changes to a character's functionality by interacting with racial and class features in dynamic and interesting ways. This assumes that feats that are 'necessary' for system balance would somehow be incorporated into the system.

Now, there are obviously a thousand variations on this and I could have ten billion poll options but there comes a point when having more options in a poll defeats the purpose of having a poll at all. The idea here is to polarise people and see where they sit, on one side of the fence or the other. This is why this is a binary poll. If you don't like that, feel free to discuss why in the thread or make another poll. For the purposes of this poll, however, I am actively trying to get a sense of the overall majority's viewpoint or even if there IS a majority viewpoint.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Your poll lacks a third option:

two distinct kind of feats: one with mathematical bonuses to combat, one with all other kind of bonuses...

 

[Kzach]

Your poll lacks a third option:

two distinct kind of feats: one with mathematical bonuses to combat, one with all other kind of bonuses...

Your post lacks basic comprehension. Try reading the OP before posting to the thread.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

A feat is a class of character element a player can select from at regular intervals. As such I don't want to limit feats in any way, so I have no answer for your poll.

 

[tiornys]

A feat is a class of character element a player can select from at regular intervals. As such I don't want to limit feats in any way, so I have no answer for your poll.

The way I read the poll, the first option is inclusive, while the second excludes feats with math bonuses. So your stance is actually the first option.

If the first option were "All feats should include mathematical bonuses", then your objection would make sense.

t~

edit: and having thought about the poll, I'm fine with feats that grant situational mathematical bonuses, so option 1 for me.

 

[Pickles JG]

Definitely on the side of no bonuses. Feats providing fixed bonuses seem to become mandatory, situational bonuses become too fiddly in play.
I personally would exclude skill bonuses as they are almost always used for characterisation reasons but I can live without them.

 

[DracoSuave]

Both is a perfectly fine option.

Not all gamers or games require the same things. Some feats should be generic, some should be specific variety. Neither, exclusively, is good. You need the generic feats so that not taking them is a valid cost for taking exclusive feats.

Some players want the simple reliability of flat bonuses. Others want the variation and customization of unusual or interesting feats.

Neither of those players are wrong.

Game design has to cater to more than one demographic, and when your choice is 'Do A' or 'Do B' and the option 'Do Both' is feasible, then you should do both.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would come down in favour of no combat bonus, though I would have no objection to bonus for skills

 

[tiornys]

Both is a perfectly fine option.

Not all gamers or games require the same things. Some feats should be generic, some should be specific variety. Neither, exclusively, is good. You need the generic feats so that not taking them is a valid cost for taking exclusive feats.

Some players want the simple reliability of flat bonuses. Others want the variation and customization of unusual or interesting feats.

Neither of those players are wrong.

Game design has to cater to more than one demographic, and when your choice is 'Do A' or 'Do B' and the option 'Do Both' is feasible, then you should do both.

This is true, but the corollary is that you need balance between the types. That is, the specific feats need to be sufficiently more powerful within their province than the general feats to make them worth taking, and sufficiently restricted that they can't be made into effectively general feats. 4ed currently fails on both counts: too many generic feats strictly outclass all related specific feats (aside from stacking), and too many sufficiently powerful specific feats are too easy to turn into all-the-time bonuses.

t~

 

[DracoSuave]

How exactly do you balance something like Light Sword Expertise with say... Linguist?

You don't. There just is no comparison from a balance standpoint.

What you need to do is make some feats that lots'll want, and other feats that are attractive to specific demographics. If it's a feat lots'll want, THAT should be the more powerful because then more characters will be balanced. Then, more focused feats can change characters to appeal to their user.

An example of this:

Expertise. Lots want that. It should be good so that lots will want that.
Nimble Blade. That's a performance feat. It's less good than expertise, but it stacks with it... but someone who wants to max performance will take this feat. Someone who wants something 'interesting' will take a different feat instead.

Everyone gets what they want, no one underperforms.

And, not being able to get all the feat 'taxes' at once... is a GOOD THING. They give players something to look forward to. They're a definitive 'This is something that makes me better' feat that, while not flashy, is a definate 'At level 4, I am better at my job.'

That's not a bad thing!

Most players don't play in a realm where 'These are needed to be math fixes!' That's some other thing that exists on forums and stuff. Most players, the vast majority, just go '+1 to hit that goes up! Awesome! I'd like that!' They don't care if it's a feat 'tax' or whatever. It's just a feat that makes them better.

The 5% of the players who don't understand how 95% of players play shouldn't be making decisions to make things more 'fun' by taking things out that the majority of players actually find fun.