Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[Crazy Jerome]

Char ops, anti-char ops is not the only agenda in play here. I'm kind of middle of the road on that one, and see things pushed to extremes on each side.

My "extreme" position, if you want to call it that, is that one of the original 4E design goals of things more or less working the way they say on the tin, is increasingy and unavoidably damaged by the way feats are currently handled.

Such a design extends beyond the mere avoiding of player traps. It also has the much more positive aspect of players who are not terribly mechanically savvy being able to get a character close to what they want without having to think about the mechanics very deeply. I've got a lot of players like this, and I want them to make their own choices, with minimal input from me. They won't do that if the build mechanics get too involved (with the threshold here, of course, being something different for every group).

I achieve this result by sticking to PHB 1 and 2, almost entirely, banning all expertise feats, and adjusting encounters accordingly. That way, I know they can pick the things that sound interesting to them, and the questions I get will be easy.

Tonight, after we finished, the warden wanted to pick out her 9th level daily. She was having a hard time picking between three powers because she like them all. She would have been ok with any of them, and if she had a favorite, I'd have never said anything. But she ask for help. So I said, "this one is mostly about hitting better, that one is mostly about slugging it out and taking it, and that last one is mostly about movement. Which one do you feel is most lacking right now? Go with that, and if you don't like it later, you can change it." I had to have some mechanical analysis to give her that statement, but she didn't need anything but a very shallow analysis to make a good decision for her.

Of course, I also know she is only going to play this character in the campaign I'm running. So I can adjust to what they take--as long as some of the characters don't suddenly get to min/max or too special snowflake that can't hit the broad side of a barn. How much variance you are willing to tolerate between min/max and snowflake, determines how much variance you'll appreciate on these kind of questions. I'm fairly low variance. My ideal system would be that the min/max choice and the flavor choice were mostly identical--the things that realized your character concept flavor were also the best way to achieve the concept mechanics.

 

[TerraDave]

I basically totally agree with D.Sauve, so I guess there is a first time for everything.

In context...I don't ever remember anyone talking about the "weapon focus" tax in 3E. But 4E pulled what had been the good feats into powers (or, in a few cases rituals). The desingers knew people liked feats, so they kept them, but what was left wasn't so hot. When the expertise feats came out, they looked superawesome in comparison.

Now, the expertise feats in the essentials books remain really good. But these days, there are many, many other good choices. (and lots of bad choices). Not all players feel compelled to take those feats, even if they "should".

 

[MrMyth]

So basically Kzach... you're mad because you can't max out your character *and* have a bunch of rp feats. You're psychologically predisposed to squeezing every bonus out of the system so you never fail a roll... but then discover after doing that that you don't get to have any "fun" stuff. So you'd rather the game designers give all these bonuses to you for free that you currently have to pay feats for... but since they don't, the game system is "broken".

Maybe the problem isn't the game. Maybe it's just you.

This, ah... seems a bit too much like "my way of gaming is better than yours" for my preferences. Is there really something wrong with wanting a character that is both flavorful, and effective in combat, and has a system mechanically support both elements?

Look, I agree that worrying too much about the numbers is silly, and there are some pretty big misconceptions about the ideal hit chance and what game elements have an impact on it.

But... especially in the current environment, which has some extremely potent feats out there, you will see a pretty significant divide between a character with those superior combat feats, and one with ones that provide flavor or support a concept.

The system isn't broken, certainly. But it isn't my ideal, either. The idea of seperating differing elements into different resources is one that 4E went with from the beginning - hence why we both have Utility Powers and Attack Powers, and you can't exchange one for the other. We could certainly have something similar for feats.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This, ah... seems a bit too much like "my way of gaming is better than yours" for my preferences.

Not at all. I was reiterating what Kzach himself pointed out.

He said...

I'd still take them because at the end of the day, I can roleplay my way through any encounter regardless of what is on my sheet, but I can't make the dice fall where I want, so I'm always going to lean towards making my character as effective as possible within the system.

He basically tells us that he will take every advantage WotC makes available to him to max out his character when it comes to the dice rolls in combat (since that is what most of the dice rolls in 4E go towards). He would just prefer that the Five Feats of Doom not exist and its numbers get rolled directly into the game itself... so that his limited resource of feats could be used elsewhere. He wants his cake and to eat it too. And heck, I understand his point of view. I think we'd all love the Game to give us stuff for free... rather than rely on our own devices to do so (because he, just like everyone else, could get all the Five Feats of Doom absolutely free just by saying "for this game, these feats are granted automatically).

But for whatever reason... whether they are all absolutely and unequivicably beholden to the concept of Ruled As Written (as though every single game they play is a Living or tournament game where houserules theoretically don't exist)... or there's some sort of desire of ego to work the system to create the ultimate character that is maxed out combat-wise and roleplay-wise... the idea of just accepting what WotC is giving them and working around it is an anathema to him and others like him. If you can't have your cake and eat it too... then obviously it's because the baker just sucks, and it's up to them to continually rant about the baker's performance. Over, and over, and over, and over again.

The rest of us just sit here continually telling them "Yeah, we get it. But it ain't changing. The game is what it is. So you might as well just get over it or get used to it... or just make the changes to your own game to get you want you want." But this continually falls upon deaf ears.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think you need to spend some time on the WotC CharOp boards. Go there with the above statements in mind but be open to changing your mind in the face of the evidence and arguments given and I think you'll come away with a different idea of how the game works. And also maybe of the people on that forum.

I know exactly how the game works. I (as the DM) create challenges for my players. Challenges... as in-- things that will challenge them.

Imagine my players' surprise that the monsters that the ranger faces seem to have a crapload of hit points (that take into account the massive amount of dpr he can put out) and can shift their way into making the ranger switch into melee on occasion. And the monsters that the maxed-out attack bonus fighter faces all seem to have higher ACs (higher in fact than what might appear in the book, because of a little device called the Monster Builder that allows me to raise the AC of anyone I damn well please.) And my fey warlock player? Doesn't seem to draw nearly the same amount of heat that the others do, because his character is more geared towards a rp focus than combat dpr. (And before anyone asks... no, these challenges do not appear every single encounter every single time... things get varied up. Sometimes easier, sometimes harder, depending on what will be most fun for everybody.)

Now guess what? I'm not playing exactly by the rules. I'm adjusting things to give me what I need... challenges to my players. Because quite frankly... I absolutely in no way feel that playing "exactly by the rules" gains me anything. I am not beholden to anything any of these books have written down. Because quite frankly, there is no reason to be. I mean, what if I do? Am I going to get a certificate in the mail by the RAW Police congratulating me for doing so? Pretty sure I'm not. Do I get a special stipend of actual payment from the CharOp boards for doing so? Uh... nope. So there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to care about playing the game "as written" if that is not going to give me what I need to run a game that my players will have fun with and enjoy.

And what will the CharOp boards possibly say to me about this? "Hey! Those orcs you threw at your players all seemed to do much more damage that the standard monster damage expression that MM3 and the Monster Vault told us to use!" Well, congrats to you for noticing that. Now why should I care that that is true?

Being a Dungeon Master is not about being the best at running a Dungeons & Dragons game by "the rules". It's about being the best at giving something your players find fun.

 

[mneme]

Ok, here's the thing. I'm totally OK with having a space between Johnny and Spike -- with Spike takiing every single feat that maxes out his combat effectiveness, and Johnny mostly picking feats he finds fun and only taking math feats when he finds he's not having fun because he's always getting hit or never hits anything or whatnot.

But...

A the moment, I think the gap is simply too large. I mean, ok, let's assume everyone will take Expertise by 15th level and Improved Defenses or equivalent by mid-paragon as well (although that's very much a math fix). But even so--the right place to divide Johnny and Spike is with Spike taking things like Two Weapon Offense, and Back Against the Wall, and a multiclass to Rogue, while Johnny gives up an extra +1 to damage, a conditional hit bonus, and some spike damage for a (hopefully bumped up) Linguist, or multiclassing to four different classes for the LOLZ as a bard, or building up a crazy combo (there -are- effective Johnnies in the world) involving save penalties and massive shots of ongoing damage.

The problem at the moment is that there are simply too many "par+" feats for optimization. Spike never -hits- diminishing returns on math feats and starts taking less good math feats; he just starts maximizing defenses or saves instead of +hit. Johnny ends up being significantly more fragile or hitting less than Spike rather than taking a moderate hit for his "thing". People like me who sit between Johnny and Spike end up saying things like "I don't get hit that much, and I want to get my thing working, so I'll take a power swap feat rather than Leather Prof (or that other feat) for now".

Optimization is fun -- but why shouldn't Spike hit diminishing returns. Why set things up so that you can take 15 mathematically optimal feats if you want, and breath or flexibility have to trade off against numbers?

Defcon 1: Actually, I've had conversations on Charop that took the opposite downgrade. I had to fight to get the Battle Engineer's "Greater Magic Weapon" provisionally sky blue for Avengers -- because the handbook maintainer's point was that while yes, a +7 (or +9 to hit, at 16th level) to hit and damage to the entire party for a round could completely destroy encounters, particularly as an encounter power, most GMs (particulalrly if you pulled this at the beginning of a fight) would see you using your party to trivially nuke a monster or two and mod up the encounter on the fly, probably enough to nullify the resources you'd spent doing this. And he was right -- if you don't pay attention to combat timing, most GMs will do exactly that, because that's what they should do!

 

[Ryujin]

And that's sort of the problem, as I see it. The gap is just too big and only gets bigger, as you go up in levels.

 

[interwyrm]

Math feats add nothing to the game. One of the design goals was to be able to have characters be effective without optimization. Adding in the fiddly bits makes it so a character with flavor feats will contribute less in a combat encounter than an opped character.

There is one caveat though - I'm fine with combat bonus feats that add interesting options, like increasing slide distance, allowing you to use powers as an MBA, etc.

On the other hand, powers that take all the challenge out of getting combat advantage are a big no. Reducing tactical complexity is bad.

 

[MrMyth]

But for whatever reason... whether they are all absolutely and unequivicably beholden to the concept of Ruled As Written (as though every single game they play is a Living or tournament game where houserules theoretically don't exist)... or there's some sort of desire of ego to work the system to create the ultimate character that is maxed out combat-wise and roleplay-wise... the idea of just accepting what WotC is giving them and working around it is an anathema to him and others like him. If you can't have your cake and eat it too... then obviously it's because the baker just sucks, and it's up to them to continually rant about the baker's performance. Over, and over, and over, and over again.

The rest of us just sit here continually telling them "Yeah, we get it. But it ain't changing. The game is what it is. So you might as well just get over it or get used to it... or just make the changes to your own game to get you want you want." But this continually falls upon deaf ears.

Because this sort of response just seems like an attempt to shut down discussion you disagree with.

I mean, we're in a thread aimed at talking about this subject. I don't agree exactly with him, but I do feel it is an area where the game could be improved, and discussion about it is the first step.

No one is making you read this thread or post in it - but when a player offers up comments on what they feel is an issue with the game, and your response is to say, "Sorry, the problem is with you, and we'd all prefer it if you just stop talking..."

...well, not really the most useful response to give, I think.

Look, in regards to your next post, you mention compensating for the party's abilities as the DM. And that's all well in good - there is nothing wrong with that approach, and honestly, it is the mark of a good DM.

But in an ideal system, one wouldn't need to do so quite that much. And that, ultimately, is all that is being looked for - an improvement on what we have now, because we like what we currently have, but that doesn't stop us from wanting it to be better.

And the defense of, "Don't blame the system, because if you were a real DM, you'd be quiet and fix it all on your own" - that sort of dismissal always just feels hollow to me.

 

[DracoSuave]

Math feats add nothing to the game. One of the design goals was to be able to have characters be effective without optimization. Adding in the fiddly bits makes it so a character with flavor feats will contribute less in a combat encounter than an opped character.[/quote}

Fallacy: A non-opped character is ineffective?

There is one caveat though - I'm fine with combat bonus feats that add interesting options, like increasing slide distance, allowing you to use powers as an MBA, etc.

On the other hand, powers that take all the challenge out of getting combat advantage are a big no. Reducing tactical complexity is bad.

Can't argue with the later point, but honestly, the counter argument to keeping things as is is this:

Premise: You need a lot of specific feats if you want to be playable.

The disproof by contradiction is:

The premise is logically equivalent to:
Ergo: You are unplayable if you do not take lots of specific feats.
Premise: The specific feats are in multiple tomes, including the PHB1 but also including other sources.
Premise: The PHB1 was released before all other sources.
Corollary: Characters during that time did not have access to all the specific feats.
Ergo: PHB1 characters were unplayable until those feats were printed.
Corollary: The game was unplayable until the feats were printed.
Premise: The game was playable on release.

Conclusion: Contradiction.

Optimization does not mean 'This is what you must do to be playable or effective.' It's a rediculous argument. If, at some point in the future, they print a feat that will help optimize a character, by that logic that character is TODAY unplayable. This is ABSURD. This is as absurd as the notion that monks were unplayable before Heroes of Shadow because now they have access to Ki Focus Expertise. This is as absurd as the notion that sorcerers were unplayable before they printed DIS. This is as absurd as the notion that all clases were unplayable before they printed the current Expertise feats.

The notion is absurd. Therefore the only conclusion to be made is that you do not need all those feats to be an effective character. Any other opinion is logically disproven and irrational.