Essentials feat too powerful???

[KarinsDad]

Rogues were doing this for a long time.

Piercing Strike.

+5 Dex +1 rogue talent +1 Expertise +3 Proficient +2 CA (most rogues should have this all, or substantially all, of the time) = +12 vs Ref at level 1. Assuming NADs are approx. level+12 = 13 Ref for most level 1 monsters, the rogue is hitting on a 2+.

The difference is that when the game first came out, the Rogues only had CA when they actually went in and flanked for the most part (and they didn't have Expertise at level 1). And since the Defender tended to position himself between the rest of the party and the monsters, that meant that the Rogue had to position himself even further behind enemy lines to get flank with the Defender.

That's +3 (CA and Expertise) of the +12 and it's also the Sneak Attack damage part of it. So sure, a 5 to hit, but doing D4+4 or so damage made up for the fact that the Rogue could hit on a 5.

I had a player play a Rogue in the Scepter Tower of Spellgard adventure two years ago and that PC was getting smacked unconscious about every other encounter because the average AC, the lower hit points and other low NADs made him extremely susceptible to any sort of focus fire.

That was part of the adventuring. Risk and reward. Reward of the best damage in the game system with the risk of being in combat with lighter defenses and hit points.

Thieves don't have that. The Thief in our current game almost never misses and infrequently gets into direct melee combat.

Reward without risk.

Rogues have a lot more of this low risk reward now due to feats like Treetop Sniper, but the original game balance of damage vs. risk is no longer a significant part of the game.

Now, Rogues and Thieves get CA almost every round which means that their to hit and hence DPR is generally higher than that of other Strikers. Because of this, the feat/item/power arms race has to swing back and give other Strikers even better feats to make up for it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yeah, this is nothing new. A fighter in one of the parties I'm in hits like that. He's level 10, has taken all the juicy to-hit options and rarely misses. +6 Str (22), +5 level, +3 proficiency (Bastard Sword), +1 Fighter Weapon Talent, +1 Expertise, +3 enhancement, for a total of +19, against a typical AC of 14+level, he hits on a 5 or better, or 7 against a soldier. That's not including CA, which even for a Fighter is easy to come by. Who doesn't want to flank with a fighter? Or charging.

Mind you, this was the same player that was whining about getting blinded in our last fight (against Blood Worms) because then he had to roll a 9 to hit.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

KarinsDad: I don't remember mentioning Expertise or Focus. They represent a small minority of the feats available. But the thing is, they are NOT boring. A player who wants to boost damage will find a Focus feat very exciting. A player who doesn't care about that so much, or finds a different way to increase damage, will find something else to be excited about.

The only feats that I would truly call boring are the ones that are so weak or marginally situational that no sane player would ever take them, e.g. a feat that gives +1 damage to Radiant attacks against undead once per day.

 

[Droogie128]

The difference is that when the game first came out, the Rogues only had CA when they actually went in and flanked for the most part (and they didn't have Expertise at level 1). And since the Defender tended to position himself between the rest of the party and the monsters, that meant that the Rogue had to position himself even further behind enemy lines to get flank with the Defender.

That's +3 (CA and Expertise) of the +12 and it's also the Sneak Attack damage part of it. So sure, a 5 to hit, but doing D4+4 or so damage made up for the fact that the Rogue could hit on a 5.

I had a player play a Rogue in the Scepter Tower of Spellgard adventure two years ago and that PC was getting smacked unconscious about every other encounter because the average AC, the lower hit points and other low NADs made him extremely susceptible to any sort of focus fire.

That was part of the adventuring. Risk and reward. Reward of the best damage in the game system with the risk of being in combat with lighter defenses and hit points.

Thieves don't have that. The Thief in our current game almost never misses and infrequently gets into direct melee combat.

Reward without risk.

Rogues have a lot more of this low risk reward now due to feats like Treetop Sniper, but the original game balance of damage vs. risk is no longer a significant part of the game.

Now, Rogues and Thieves get CA almost every round which means that their to hit and hence DPR is generally higher than that of other Strikers. Because of this, the feat/item/power arms race has to swing back and give other Strikers even better feats to make up for it.

My rogue had CA without flanking when it was just PHB1. Ranged attacks with Deft Strike. If there's a place to stealth, DS = easy CA.

 

[Chronosome]

You know, this feat-creep business really doesn't matter. If a DM is doing their job well, the players won't even notice the compensation that's being implemented for their choices. The point of the game is to have fun, and if players perceive that they have a more badass character for taking Feat A over Feat B, then so be it.

Fun is the point of the game. A DM's job is to adapt and tweak according to player choices, then provide challenges and great narrative. It'll be fine, folks. Hooray for placebo!

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad: I don't remember mentioning Expertise or Focus. They represent a small minority of the feats available. But the thing is, they are NOT boring. A player who wants to boost damage will find a Focus feat very exciting.

If you say so. IME, these two types of feats are a really small minority of the feats, but not a really small minority of the feats taken. Nor have I ever seen a player excited over these feats. But the type of feat they represent (a conditional or non-conditional boost to a combat characteristic of the game system) is a very large percentage of the feats available (and a large percentage of feats taken). Just different ways to skin the cat.

I've seen players a bit excited over feats like White Lotus Riposte (since it is not just an add to something on the sheet, but something that they can try to use actively to protect their PC).

Or Beast Protector, or Twist the Arcane Fabric. Feats that are not just a static add to offense or defense or skills on the character sheet, but ones that give players reasonable options that they didn't have before, appear to be the ones that players actually talk about. At least IME. Even Melee Training (although it is just an add on the sheet, it also opens the door to charges and OAs, etc.).

Obviously, YMMV, but my take on feats is that many of them are just different mundane ways to increase damage or to defend better in combat. There are fewer really interesting and exciting feats that aren't just adds to combat characteristics than there are the opposite. They do exist, but they tend to get drowned out in the plethora of feats in the feat arms race to just maintain or improve combat effectiveness.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

If you say so. IME, these two types of feats are a really small minority of the feats, but not a really small minority of the feats taken. Nor have I ever seen a player excited over these feats. But the type of feat they represent (a conditional or non-conditional boost to a combat characteristic of the game system) is a very large percentage of the feats available (and a large percentage of feats taken). Just different ways to skin the cat.

I've seen players a bit excited over feats like White Lotus Riposte (since it is not just an add to something on the sheet, but something that they can try to use actively to protect their PC).

Or Beast Protector, or Twist the Arcane Fabric. Feats that are not just a static add to offense or defense or skills on the character sheet, but ones that give players reasonable options that they didn't have before, appear to be the ones that players actually talk about. At least IME. Even Melee Training (although it is just an add on the sheet, it also opens the door to charges and OAs, etc.).

Obviously, YMMV, but my take on feats is that many of them are just different mundane ways to increase damage or to defend better in combat. There are fewer really interesting and exciting feats that aren't just adds to combat characteristics than there are the opposite. They do exist, but they tend to get drowned out in the plethora of feats in the feat arms race to just maintain or improve combat effectiveness.

I have two takes on this.

First, obviously feats like White Lotus Riposte are great -- they increase damage by upgrading a different part of the damage equation (more attacks, instead of more damage per attack). As such, they are so good that some DMs even ban them. Similar feats include Agile Opportunist and Stonefoot Reprisal, and they will also be attractive to anyone playing with a DM who is likely to trigger them frequently.

Second, feats like White Lotus Riposte actually makes something like Weapon Focus or Weapon Expertise more useful, because of the multiplier effect.

But referring back to a "boring" feat that I talked about earlier, Superior Will has allowed me to take entire turns when I would have otherwise been Stunned at least 4 times, and more actions when I would have been Dazed at least 5 times, if I recall correctly. Those feats may not seem exciting when you choose them in the Character Builder, but they are a very big deal when you are at the table and your turn doesn't end after 5 seconds.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

When feats came out in 3E, my first impression was:

"oh oh. They've opened Pandora's box and it'll never be closed again."

The issue with feats is that they are never good enough. There is a significant "entitlement" mentality within the D&D community that something isn't cool unless it is new and shiny and more powerful than last time.

So, that's exactly what happened with 3E feats, then 3E and 3.5 splat book feats, then 4E PHB feats came out and they were fairly well balanced, but the splat books again made older feats obsolete and newer feats cooler. Essentials just continues that trend.

As an example:

PHB, Paragon feat Iron Will. +2 feat bonus to Will.

Essentials, Heroic feat Improved Defenses. +1 to all 3 defenses, +2 at Paragon, +3 at Epic

Even if this is a math fix attempt, it is SO much more powerful than the original Paragon defense feats that it is a no brainer. Nobody would ever ever ever take the Paragon feats again if they know about the Heroic feat.

As a current player of 4e and a DM of 3.x and current GM of Pathfinder, I find this post both valid and interesting.

3E and 4e have developed a production line of feats in the ever-expanding schedule of expanding the games options. I think Paizo/Pathfinder have addressed the issues you correctly identify in regards to feats:
- The more you expand, or perhaps more precisely flood the varied design spaces, the more you are crafting a feat because it fills in the last 6 permutations of design space rather than because it is a feat that would be meaningful to a variety of character concepts. This overt need for expansion and more, more, more I think is the issue rather than the mechanical unit that is the feat. Pathfinder has severely trimmed the annual output of feats compared to 3.x and this has been a noticeable benefit for that system.
- The second thing is that Paizo/Pathfinder really follow their touchstones and limits in terms of design and feats/classes etc. unlike WotC with both 3.x and now 4E. Admittedly, I think 4E has had to combat two issues here. Firstly is that they didn't want feats to overshadow the power system and so feats were perhaps artificially low on the power scale. To produce more feats, more design space was required and so the artifically lower power limit had to give way. On top of this, you have the expertise "mathematics" correction - which perhaps was driven by the whole more, more, more thing in the first place.

I suppose my point is that the feat on its own can work and work well (as evidenced by Paizo's handling of it) but when meshed to WotC's demand for output, like everything else, it has to creep up. Essentials feats are perhaps the answer... let's just start at 11.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[KarinsDad]

But referring back to a "boring" feat that I talked about earlier, Superior Will has allowed me to take entire turns when I would have otherwise been Stunned at least 4 times, and more actions when I would have been Dazed at least 5 times, if I recall correctly. Those feats may not seem exciting when you choose them in the Character Builder, but they are a very big deal when you are at the table and your turn doesn't end after 5 seconds.

You must get attacked with Daze and Stun an awful lot.

But the point is, sure. This feat protected your PC and you as a player remembered it (sort of, does your DM tell you the exact totals of his monster to hit rolls? that seems a bit unusual).

But, the feat and nothing else prevented Daze or Stun 9 times so far??? With a bonus of +2 to +4? How many levels?

With maybe 10% of Will attacks doing Daze or Stun (40% in MM total, but the vast majority ~90% are once per encounter not at will due to the potency of Daze and Stun), 1 attack in 9 being a Will attack (MM only, other sources will vary), 8 NPC attacks against a PC per encounter (on average, a bit low for Defenders, high for everyone else), 8 combat encounters per level (it's almost never 10 due to higher level encounters, skill challenges, quest XP, etc.), 15% average bonus by Superior Will at Paragon (10% at Heroic, 20% at Epic).

The small bonus to Will Defense from Superior Will should prevent a PC from getting Dazed and Stunned approximately 9 times in about 90 levels or once every tier (usually 6 months to a year of gaming sessions, not exactly exciting how often it helps against these rare conditions). It'll help out against any Will attack more often (maybe even as often as once per level), but not so frequently against Daze and Stun specifically unless your DM throws a ton of those at the PCs.

Course, Superior Will hasn't been around long enough for most players to play 90 levels, so your experience seems to be an extreme bit of an anomaly.

I think your anecdotal evidence here is just that. Anecdotal and very very atypical.

I doubt the vast majority of players who have taken Will Defense boost feats have had as good of luck with them as you have.

 

[666Sinner666]

Dazed, stunned, and dominated become more prevelent at later levels as conditions that both the PC's and NPC's cause. So, if he is refering to a character in a higher level camapaign or a character throughout its current life then its not odd at all.