Do you want variety or bonuses in your feats?

[Gryph]

I would take feats down a different path completely.

First I would reduce the number given. Probably down to 1 at 1st and then start of each tier; and an additional feat at each level you increase 2 stats (4, 8, etc.).

Second, I would limit their scope to mechanical specialization and remove all racial feats from this part of the design space. Multi-class as well.

Lastly, I would pursue the flavor and racial options through the themes design space as Matt James discussed in another thread (my link fu is weak, sorry).

 

[MrMyth]

My level of system competence is actually quite basic-- use whatever rules are at my disposal to make sure my players are challenged but still have fun. And if those rules don't exist... make them up.

...

But I don't need to know that, because it isn't necessary. If I ever find that my players should be hitting 15% more than they do... I lower my monster ACs. Or I raise my PCs attack numbers by having them fight in terrain that gives them bonuses.

...

It's called "being an observant DM". And no amount of mathmatical theorycraft from CharOps is required to do it, just a pair of eyes and some common sense.

Again, I commend your skill as a DM. That sort of ability - to analyze the situation quickly and efficiently, and react appropriately - is the mark of a good DM. But I don't think your ability to handle the situation is a reason to insist others should just 'man up' and be as good a DM as you. Many people would prefer that the system itself try and remove the need to make up rules, make up judgement calls like this, or to adjust monsters/terrain/etc to fix problems introduced by the system.

Now, no system will be perfect, it is true. But again - the desire to see a perceived flaw fixed is a reasonable one, and dismissing it because "a good DM can handle it" is not now, and has never been, an acceptable response.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

Yes and no. Divvying it up into two resources will make the discrepancies less severe. Right now, we've got Utility Powers that help in combat and ones with more skill-based effects. I feel like if I went with more flavorful Utility powers, I might be less effective than an optimized character in combat, but not by an unreasonable amount.

But if you asked me to give up, say, Encounter Attack powers in order to take my Utility powers... that would be a much harsher choice. And I feel that is what we have right now with feats.

We've got these really potent combat-centric options, alongside the purely flavor options. And the difference between the two is pretty sizable.

If we put them in seperate categories, I'm sure we'd still end up with optimized vs non-optimized choices. But the difference would not be as extreme.

A system can allow min-maxing to exist while still keeping it somewhat restricted. It comes back to the 'gap' - the possible difference between your optimized character vs your average character.

With the PHB, how much of a difference could you get between an optimized vs non-optimized character? In terms of attack rolls, for example... maybe 2 points from ability score mods, 1 point from proficiency. Another 1 point from Epic Destiny. Potentially 1 point from your class. A few other elements - one or two paragon paths, temporary power or item bonuses, etc - might expand that, but they were much rarer.

Thus, by level 30, your typical optimized character is likely at +5 to hit compared to your non-optimized character. Now, that definitely can be felt. But the characters are in the same field. A DM can toss out an enemy that one of them hits on an 8, the other hits on a 13. Both feel like they can contribute, even if one is more effective at doing so.

But with feats and items these days, the gap has widened. I'm an Essentials character making basic attacks - let's say I'm an archer. I can get +3 to hit from Eagle Eye Goggles. +3 to hit from Expertise. Maybe another +1 or +2 from various feats/items with easy to meet conditions. And another feat lets all my attacks target Reflex instead of AC.

Suddenly I'm looking at being close to +15 to hit compared to a character who hasn't invested in these things. And that's a world of difference. Enemies that he can barely hit are almost automatic hits for me. A DM really can't challenge both of us at the same time via one opponent.

There are ways around this, of course. But it still isn't an ideal situation. It all comes back to the gap. I'm cool with there being a difference between optimized and non-optimized characters. In any system that allows for choice and customization, you can't avoid that.

But I want that gap to remain much more limited. I want the optimizer to be more effective, but not so much so he is fighting in a completely different league.

Less potent options, along with a system that would let characters invest in flavorful choices without having to pass over the mechanically powerful options... that's really what I would prefer.

 

[MrMyth]

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 it has anything to do with computer games. Wanting balanced mechanics is an acceptable goal for any game system, and implying that it is something intrinsic to video games is silly.

I agree that no system is perfect. That DM fiat will always be relevant, and the need for a group to be able to adapt as they play. But perfection not being achievable does not mean that improvements should not be strived for.

I think it is possible to aim for this goals - a system as balanced as possible in its core design, without having to sacrifice to attain that balance. I think that such a product would be useful to both new gamers, who don't have to rely on DM judgement to fix things, as well as to experienced players, who can have their DM focus on other matters - or have them adjust the challenge/etc to whatever level they prefer.

Again, I understand that some DMs are perfectly capable of addressed perceived flaws in their own games. It's been happening since D&D began - every table has its own house rules, plays its own version of the game!

But a problem being fixable is not the same as a problem that does not need to be fixed. If that was true, the game would never have evolved from its original form at all. And sure, there are some who might have preferred that!

For me, though, I think that continuing to identify areas for improvement, and address them, is fundamentally a good thing.

 

[DracoSuave]

If we put them in seperate categories, I'm sure we'd still end up with optimized vs non-optimized choices. But the difference would not be as extreme.

And yet this is not a problem in most campaigns, only those that have a mix of characters. And that is solveable through the DM enacting his duty to moderate the campaign, including player options.

The problem does NOT exist in campaigns with only minmaxed characters and the problem does NOT exist in the opposite camp campaigns.

So why revamp the system entirely just to satisfy a subset of campaigns when a safety valve already exists?

 

[MrMyth]

And yet this is not a problem in most campaigns, only those that have a mix of characters. And that is solveable through the DM enacting his duty to moderate the campaign, including player options.

The problem does NOT exist in campaigns with only minmaxed characters and the problem does NOT exist in the opposite camp campaigns.

So why revamp the system entirely just to satisfy a subset of campaigns when a safety valve already exists?

I'm not sure it is true to say it doesn't exist in those campaigns. Again, the wider the range of possible PC optimization, the harder a time the DM will be able to judge what the group is capable of, challenge wise.

As it is, though, I think improvement for the sake of making it a better game to more players would be a pretty self-explanatory reason. I'm not proposing they immediately, this second, revise the entire game. Again, many of these thoughts are getting tossed out there in the context of adjustments to home games, the ideal system I'd like to see in the next edition, etc.

But I think that a system that helps those games which include a mix of players - which I think is likely a solid number of the campaigns out there, and especially felt in RPGA games like LFR or D&D Encounters - is a good thing.

And I think it is attainable while still serving the needs of the all optimized campaigns and all non-optimized campaigns. And I think it will remove a lot of this burden being on the DM to judge PC capabilities and adjust the campaign to suit them.

Again - I'm not expecting, nor do I even want, perfection. I'm not saying I want a system where every challenge is identical for every group. But I ran a campaign through Epic level. Some PCs were doing absurd stuff compared to others. It was a pain to challenge both of them. Less of a pain than figuring out similar encounters in 3rd Edition, it is true. I didn't need to account for various high level spells and capabilities. But I did need to account for simple mechanical potency and try to provide a good experience for all the players at once.

I'd like to think I was up to the task. That doesn't change the fact I would have been quite happy if the system had done some more of the work for me.

In the end, again, I don't think a problem should be excused by putting the burden on the DM. If it can be fixed within the system itself, and if this would provide a positive benefit for many players, DMs and groups out there... then it should be.

 

[Major Moab]

I'll admit I didn't read all the posts, but this is what I want from feats. Flavor.

I don't need them to be all bonuses, or effects. I would like feats that fit my character design. I would love "flawed feats," something that gives me a significant bonus to something my character is good at while penalizing him elsewhere. Like an immovable object feat, that lowers my speed by x, while lowering any forced movement by the same. Or a Blind faith, that lowers my intelligence while buffing my will. Stuff like that.

These are mechanical examples, but to me the most important part of a feat is the depth they add to my two dimensional character. All else is negotiable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But a problem being fixable is not the same as a problem that does not need to be fixed. If that was true, the game would never have evolved from its original form at all. And sure, there are some who might have preferred that!

IT'S - NOT - FIXABLE.

Not in 4E.

That's the point.

They had a chance to fix it the way you all wanted back before PHII, and WotC chose not to. I've said that before, and I'll keep saying it until people finally realize it.

The only way the math of 4E will be fixed internally and not via feats is when 5E gets released. That's it. When WotC finally revamps the entire system, then and only then will you get a result that you'll be happy with. And while I understand that for some reason you need to keep "reminding" WotC that "Hey! The math's wrong! And how you fixed it we don't like it!"... I'm pretty sure WotC got that message about the math discrepency a couple years ago even before Expertise and the rest were ever thought up. So if WotC plans on making the internal changes to the math for 5E... they're already on it. And the 375th thread created on ENWorld talking about is kind of superfluous at this point, unless you happen to be one of a number of ENWorlders who think WotC is nothing but a company of morons (of which goodness knows there are some of you). And for those people I will ALWAYS come into any thread that keeps implying that, because we all know you're just being hyperbolic and I feel it important to acknowledge that you are in no way the majority in that way of thinking.

 

[keterys]

I'm pretty sure the PH2 didn't have anything to do with Backstabber, Lasting Frost, or Weapon Focus - just to cite 3 of the more popular "just adding damage" feats, and the poll is _very_ much about those, and not just expertise. So stop trying to make it about expertise, please.

And it's a poll about what you like - it can inform 5e, or it can inform a project to release a list of feats that aren't as mechanically focused, or any number of other projects, and they're all perfectly fine things to talk about, without yelling at people to stop. If you feel a need to yell about a topic... you're almost always better off taking a deep breath and leaving the thread.

 

[MrMyth]

IT'S - NOT - FIXABLE.

Not in 4E.

That's the point.

They had a chance to fix it the way you all wanted back before PHII, and WotC chose not to. I've said that before, and I'll keep saying it until people finally realize it.

Except you haven't really addressed the various responses folks have given to that claim.

For one thing, we're not talking about one single element, and either they fix it or ignore it. The Expertise issue is seperate from feat bloat is seperate from feat organization is seperate from having a delineation between combat and non-combat feats.

They seem to be sticking with Expertise. I'd like to see it change, but yeah, I don't hold out much hope of it doing so before 5E. That doesn't mean we can't discuss approaches folks can use in their home games.

Feat bloat does seem to be something they are taking note of - as shown by the significant slowdown in material, both in new products and the content offered in Dragon.

Organizing feats better in the Compendium and Character Builder is certainly a viable goal. And they've done errata in the past - having more of it that might merge/trim/adjust many of the feats out there isn't likely, but I don't think it is impossible.

And as far as introducing a new category of non-combat feats or something along those lines? It does seem like a drastic change and not likely to be the sort of thing introduced mid-edition. But... we've had Backgrounds introduced, and Themes as well. A readjustment of the feat system, or a new system designed to work alongside it, seems quite plausible to me. Maybe not likely, again, but it could happen.

You feel that none of this discussion can have any impact on WotC before 5E. I don't think that is true, but even if it was, I think it is still a discussion worth having for our own use and, yes, for any future editions that come along.

The only way the math of 4E will be fixed internally and not via feats is when 5E gets released. That's it. When WotC finally revamps the entire system, then and only then will you get a result that you'll be happy with. And while I understand that for some reason you need to keep "reminding" WotC that "Hey! The math's wrong! And how you fixed it we don't like it!"... I'm pretty sure WotC got that message about the math discrepency a couple years ago even before Expertise and the rest were ever thought up. So if WotC plans on making the internal changes to the math for 5E... they're already on it. And the 375th thread created on ENWorld talking about is kind of superfluous at this point, unless you happen to be one of a number of ENWorlders who think WotC is nothing but a company of morons (of which goodness knows there are some of you). And for those people I will ALWAYS come into any thread that keeps implying that, because we all know you're just being hyperbolic and I feel it important to acknowledge that you are in no way the majority in that way of thinking.

Ok, we're pretty clearly going in circles here. But as I've said before - I think the conversation runs deeper than that, and serves a purpose both for us discussing it and, yes, for the WotC design staff that do pay vague attention to these sorts of discussions and internalize elements of it.

If you really feel you need to come into every thread of this sort and insist that none of our discussion is meaningful, I suppose that is your right. But it doesn't feel especially productive, nor does the insistance that no one else agrees with us. You're free to state that you don't think that same way, but I'm not entirely sure you get to lay claim to what the majority is thinking.