Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[DracoSuave]

Absolutes don't allow you a lot of wiggle room for when it would make sense.

I prefer to think about it in terms of breadth vs. depth. I think a valid track to take with feats is to have them be mostly about breadth. In this view, feats that are static constant +1 bonuses during the majority of the time (feats like the Expertise and Focus feats) would be nixed, while feats that expand your character's abilities, or the ways in which they can use their abilities, would be kept. Feats could modify powers (a feat to improve the range, or add damage to a single power), feats could grant new abilities (rituals, additional powers, new skills), feats could give a very narrow bonus that might pop up only 1/session, if that (+10 to attack rolls...vs. orcs...).

That's not the way they are now, of course, but it's a possibility. I'm not sure that it's better or worse than straight bonuses, but I at least think it's more interesting.

I understand what you're trying to say. I also understand that a lot of players don't want to be forced into 'interesting' feat choices. To them, static bonuses are interesting and fun.

The game has to be able to support both types of players. What one person likes another person abhors. Both need to be considered.

I also think the DM needs to take an active role. If the problem is players taking nothing but bonus after bonus after bonus and it's not appropriate to the group make up or campaign to be bleeding edge, the DM has every right to say 'Dude, chill, you don't need to do that, this isn't that kind of campaign.'

That's one of the DM's jobs... has been ever since table top rp was invented. It's a DM responsibility and necessary in a game with lots of options that, as many point out, could spiral out of control in certain campaigns.

The other thing is, taking out static bonuses doesn't solve the problem that bleeding edge minmaxers will push the boundries of the system. Changing some of the tools to do that will only change the feats on their sheet to other things. It's the mentality left unchecked that is the problem, that irrational belief that characters MUST be at the razor's edge or else they suck. That's a DM's job to curb, because that's an attitude that drains fun from the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The game has to be able to support both types of players. What one person likes another person abhors. Both need to be considered.

Sure, but there are ways to get static constant bonuses that aren't related to feats.

It's a siloing project. A choice between static bonuses is fine, a choice between character options is fine, but a choice between static bonuses and character options is the old "Do I make an effective character, or do I make the character with the interesting story" false dichotomy.

Your +1s to all defenses need to come from a different place than your fancy new ability to do rituals (or whatever).

I'm not saying get rid of the +1's, I'm saying that relocating them (or relocating the character options) would be a good idea.

I also think the DM needs to take an active role.

I think the intent of a feat should be pretty clear without the DM having to elaborate on any greater campaign theme.

The other thing is, taking out static bonuses doesn't solve the problem that bleeding edge minmaxers will push the boundries of the system.

I don't think that's a problem, I just think that there needs to be a way for those minmaxers to play with people who aren't minmaxers and have them both be effective in their own way.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sure, but there are ways to get static constant bonuses that aren't related to feats.

But there isn't a way to get feats that are static bonuses for players who like status bonus feats without HAVING status bonus feats. It's not the feats themselves that are the problem.

[quoteIt's a siloing project. A choice between static bonuses is fine, a choice between character options is fine, but a choice between static bonuses and character options is the old "Do I make an effective character, or do I make the character with the interesting story" false dichotomy. [/quote]

Your language betrays the mentality and logical fallacy. Characters do not need all those feats to be effective. There is no choice between 'effective' and 'interesting.' The choice is between 'power gaming' and 'interesting.' Between 'munchkin' and 'interesting.'

Taking a handful of feats is absolutely fine. Taking ALL of them simply because you're afraid of being ineffective in a system where that simply is not the case? It's irrational.

If you can't call a spade a spade, then you're not in a position to truly solve the 'problem.' And the 'problem' is that power gamers want their cake and eat it too. And nothing more than that.

You do NOT need those feats to be effective. The dichotomy you present is a lie. You are choosing between powergaming and interesting feats, and that is, quite simply, a fair choice to make. And it DOES depend on campaign.

Your +1s to all defenses need to come from a different place than your fancy new ability to do rituals (or whatever).

Why? It just supports a lie.

I'm not saying get rid of the +1's, I'm saying that relocating them (or relocating the character options) would be a good idea.

Why? It just supports a lie.

I think the intent of a feat should be pretty clear without the DM having to elaborate on any greater campaign theme.

DMs should always be involved in the player's character design. This is a truism in every rpg ever made. D&D4th edition is not magically different.

I don't think that's a problem, I just think that there needs to be a way for those minmaxers to play with people who aren't minmaxers and have them both be effective in their own way.

Yes, it's called the DM doing his job. The DM can sit there and say 'Dude, you're pretty much far enough there, calm down and take some other , you are ripping through the game' to the power gamer and say 'Dude, you should probably take a couple feats to make your concept represent itself better in combat. It's a great concept, let's get its execution uo.' to the other guy

That's one of the jobs of the DM, and has always been a valuable skill in keeping party unity in games where this is possible.

You do it in D&D, you do it in Vampire, you do it in Shadowrun, you do it in EVERY GAME.

How is fourth edition D&D any different from every game in that respect? It isn't.

And what about balancing a party of power gamers vs a party of interesting feat-takers? Who cares, they are two different styles supported by the game system and there is no problem here.

Wher conflicting styles mix in a party, there needs to be comprimise. That's the DM's job to assist with if the players can't. There are many ways to do that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But there isn't a way to get feats that are static bonuses for players who like status bonus feats without HAVING status bonus feats. It's not the feats themselves that are the problem.

Well, do they like futzing with mechanical bonuses, or do they specifically like futzing with mechanical bonuses in the mechanic of things called "feats"? We can satisfy the former desire in lots of places. The latter desire I think is far too narrow and specific, not to mention a little hung up on terminology. Who cares if it is called a "feat" or a "talent" or a "glockenspiel?" The idea is to stop having to choose between Ritual Caster and Weapon Proficiency on the one hand and Weapon Expertise and Improved Defenses on the other, since the effects are entirely divergent, not to mention largely obvious.

"Hmm...do I take a feat that might help me once in a while under the right conditions, or do I take a feat that always helps me constantly under almost any conditions?"

Your language betrays the mentality and logical fallacy. Characters do not need all those feats to be effective. There is no choice between 'effective' and 'interesting.' The choice is between 'power gaming' and 'interesting.' Between 'munchkin' and 'interesting.'

That shouldn't be a choice, either.

And it doesn't matter if a character does literally need all those feats or just feels like they sort of do, or sees that they're a logically better choice. The effect winds up being the same: people feel pushed to take a "better" feat.

Hell, 3e bards were perfectly viable, too, and that didn't stop the perception that they weren't, true or not.

Feats don't need to force that choice.

If you can't call a spade a spade, then you're not in a position to truly solve the 'problem.' And the 'problem' is that power gamers want their cake and eat it too. And nothing more than that.

It's actually a lot more complex, in regards to player psychology during character creation, how we decide, the paradox of choice, and the problem of control. It involves a question of system mastery, group dynamics, feeling like you're "contributing," and the ever-increasing appeal of bigger numbers. If you put the choice of "+1 to everything" or "You can now use a hammer" in front of people, the nature of the choice funnels you into the raw bonus very subtly.

It's sort of like this:

I am your boss. You make a decent wage, but nothing spectacular. I can give you a raise, or I can give you a brand new responsibility, and no raise.

Or:

I am supplying you for a desert journey. You're supplied for the journey, but you don't want to get lost for long. I can give you more jugs of water, or I can give you a dowsing rod, which might lead to water.

You make "enough" money as it is, and you have "enough" water anyway. You don't "need" money or water.

The risk-aversion that leads you to choose the raise over the responsibility, and the extra jugs over the dowsing rod, is at work in this choice between a +1 bonus to everything and the ability to wield a hammer.

Yes, if you miss, it's not the end of the world. But you also then look at your current hammer proficiency, and your possible Weapon Expertise, and you experience something akin to buyer's remorse. Your choice doesn't make you happier. Comparatively, the remorse over choosing not to learn how to wield a hammer is significantly less common.

It's a choice that we don't need to force, though. We can design the system in such a way that you get BOTH a raise and a new responsibility, BOTH the water and the dowsing rod. I wouldn't call those who sought out extra water or extra money greedy or "munchkins," because they have an obvious appeal in those scenarios.

Why? It just supports a lie.

To make the game more fun for everyone involved, of course. The DM doesn't need to lecture the players, the minmaxer gets her +1s (and they get multiple languages!), the newbie gets his multiple languages (and they get a +1!), the game is better for it.

DMs should always be involved in the player's character design.

Oh I see. I can't just say, "Make a character using the games' books, I don't care what it is, I have other stuff to worry about in the game." That's what I've said since the days of 2e. Damn, I'm Doing It Wrong.

Yes, it's called the DM doing his job.

There's no reason the DM should have to get involved here. Extra decision points, extra hassle, extra input, extra time, extra effort...I just wanna have the party beat up some goblins, I don't really care what kind of characters they do it with.

Especially when the system can just say, "You don't have to pick between breadth and depth, you can have BOTH."

And what about balancing a party of power gamers vs a party of interesting feat-takers? Who cares, they are two different styles supported by the game system and there is no problem here.

Every time the latter misses, it's a problem, since they suddenly feel like they've taken the "wrong" choice for contributing to the game. The opportunities to regret taking Expertise instead of Linguist are much fewer and father between in play.

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem is you're going to just shift that to other choices. Even if you remove 'feat tax' feats... the min maxer is still going to min-max regardless of the feat choices before him.

They ALWAYS do. So let's say you take the feat choices a minmaxer always takes, and make that your criterion for the 'performance feats' silo. This is going to include 'interesting feats' as well by their nature.

Now you have the exact same problem you had before, just it exists in two silos instead of one.

 

[jbear]

I prefer feats with a static bonus, and a situational (flavoursome) advantage. Like Superior Will/Fort/Ref or the essential Expertise feats. They hit what I look for in a feat.

Multiclass feats hit that same spot. Dragonmark feats do as well. Feats that improve an at will power and give a small feat bonus to a skill are on a similar track.

I do think there is still room for design improvement and clean up as far as feats go in 4e and I would be very interested in/happy with a parallel mechanic (perhaps joined with themes) that saw a gain in only flavourful non mathemetical situational feats.

 

[darkwing]

This poll sucks. How about options or styles that give bonuses? Like bonus for charging vs bonus for number of enemies surrounding you. Or bonus for attacking the same enemy vs bonus for changing targets every round? Bonus vs prone targets? Bonus vs slowed targets?

These add variety and power.

That being said, the worst feats are the static bonus to hit. If you miss out on 2 damage per round, it's still a fun game. If you can't hit anything the game is awful. Chance to hit should be independent of attributes and static feats.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The biggest issue with all of this, and I think it comes directly from 4E's initial impressions that it was "trying to be a MMO computer game" that a lot of people had at the beginning... is that many people are under the impression that the game should be able to be played on its own. The numbers, and indeed, the entire game system... are supposed to work themselves out and tie themselves into a pretty little bow without any required effort on the part of actual human players.

That's why there's this dichotomy between all of us. And why when DracoSuave says that a DM should obviously have an active hand in character creation (since in his mind, that's an obvious point of having a human being as DM), Kamikaze Midget then questions that with why he should have to and that he must be "doing it wrong" (since in his mind, the game should be able to work without having an active hand in it.)

Obviously, I fall on the side of DracoSuave's in this... as all along I've made the point that any "problems" that supposedly exist in the game are not actually problems because the assumption of an RPG as a game is that there is a human being playing the part of the DM that is purposely there to make judgement calls when necessary.

But I do in fact understand the feelings of the rest of you that think the game could or should be able to be played via computer with no human decision-making required, and every combat and every encounter fall within an acceptable result variation. Which is why adjusted monster damage, encounter levels, feats and feat taxes, stunning, dazing, and all the other parts of the game that have an active hand in producing those acceptable result variations, get discussed, argued, hammered, and constantly identified as "broken". And if you were to try and actually create a computer simulation of 4E combat... I can understand why you want to do this.

I just happen to believe that expecting a fluid game such as this to remain completely balanced over the entire length of its existence is kinda futile. I don't think it's possible. Not when other human beings are constantly creating new things to add to the game that throw balance completely out the window. It's the reason why a game like WoW gets patched practically every other month... because they constantly have to try and balance, then re-balance, then re-re-balance, then re-re-re-balance the game over and over again as new parts get added and human players then find ways to unbalance it. And it's the exact same thing with 4E. There will always be found different methods to unbalance the game, despite the hope that it will continue to work with computer-like precision.

Which is why we will always be appearing in each other's threads... one side wondering how the hell we can play the game when the numbers behind the game are so out of whack... and the other wondering why you just don't have the players and DM work together to gloss over or agree to ignore any small problems that crop up along the way, all in the name of fun.

And that's the one thing I don't think will EVER change.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But I do in fact understand the feelings of the rest of you that think the game could or should be able to be played via computer with no human decision-making required, and every combat and every encounter fall within an acceptable result variation. Which is why adjusted monster damage, encounter levels, feats and feat taxes, stunning, dazing, and all the other parts of the game that have an active hand in producing those acceptable result variations, get discussed, argued, hammered, and constantly identified as "broken". And if you were to try and actually create a computer simulation of 4E combat... I can understand why you want to do this.

I don't think you understand this particular discussion, or you wouldn't put it that way. What you have portrayed is the extreme position. It may very well be held by some in char ops, and even some here. But I know I don't hold it in any measure, and I seriously doubt more than one or two here do either.

Because you and Draco keep talking as if this were all or nothing, as if there was no line along which you could make trades, where people like Kamikazi and I can mainly leave players to pick whatever they want, secure in the knowledge that they won't excessively overshadow others or gimp themselves. And then in those niche cases where it matters, we can step in like DMs always have.

Draco keeps saying that the min/maxers will just move the grounds and mix/max somewhere else. That probably is true. But, mix/maxers aren't the issue. Accidental min/maxing, or accidental gimping, is the issue.

Also, I take issue that a "good" DM will just always adjust for such, and thus we shouldn't worry about it. That totally ignores opportunity costs. A "good" DM will provide a fun game for the participants at the table, including said DM. To the extent that the DM is wasting time and energy fixing something, then the DM is not putting that energy into something more productive.

Now, this kind of thinking can be pushed too far. I'm pretty sure there are char ops fanatics that have pushed it too far. I sympathize with a reaction against that--even agree with it. But you aren't helping your cause any with a kneejerk opposition to anything that even broaches the subject.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But you aren't helping your cause any with a kneejerk opposition to anything that even broaches the subject.

Whereas I would counter that you aren't helping yours.. in that due to the fact that WotC has deliberately chosen not to errata out all these things that you find objectionable... that you and Kamikaze might very well be a part of that extreme position that you tried to write off.