Essentials feat too powerful???

I don't think it's accurate to just look at the monster list as a whole. You don't usually just go through the MM fighting one after another.

When playing a "themed" campaign, some types of attack may be temporarily more common. Think an "underdark" adventure where you're spending a level or two squaring off against a colony of Mind Flayers, for example. There is going to be a whole lot of dazing and stunning going on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No one in this thread has come close to convincing me that feats aren't one of the worst additions to the game since it's creation.

Please, honestly: why are feats a good and necessary addition to the game? You don't get to answer this if you haven't actually played a full session of any other version of the game.

How would 4E be a bad game without feats?
 

Figured it out. Feats provide:
- A way to customize your character that was not available in 1e, 2e
- A way to customize your character _after_ the initial character creation
- A way to feel like leveling is more than just adding some hit points
 


Figured it out. Feats provide:
- A way to customize your character that was not available in 1e, 2e
- A way to customize your character _after_ the initial character creation
- A way to feel like leveling is more than just adding some hit point

I'll add:

  • A way to enhance certain themes of a race or a class without re-building the whole shebang.
  • A way to add powers and abilities to a class or race that might not be appropriate for every character
  • A way to enable niche options to become competitive
  • A way to expand your character with optional sub-systems and unique mechanics without having to respec your entire character.

I...really don't get the feat-hate. It seems more like power-creep-hate. Which, within an edition, is somewhat justified, but between editions is a little narmed. Different games, different power level comparisons.
 

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.

Mathematically it's astronomically against that happening. How many single characters have you played for 90 consecutive levels? Granted, the math I used was only from all three tiers of the Monster Manual and other books have other ratios of monsters with a Daze or Stun attack against Will, and/or his DM could be throwing Daze and Stun capable monsters at the group every encounter. But, the feat has only been out for what, 6 months?

Remember, he was only talking Daze and Stun, not Dominate. And, there are Fort attacks that do Daze and Stun as well, but he was only talking Will Defense versus those two specific conditions.


I'm not saying that it didn't happen to him, I'm just saying that the odds of it happening to anyone else are extremely small, so his example doesn't really illustrate his point.

Even if one monster in the normal five that the DM throws at the group does only a Daze or Stun vs. Will attack on every single round in every single encounter, that would be 1 attack in 5 being a Daze/Stun Will attack, 8 NPC attacks against a PC per encounter, 8 combat encounters per level, and 15% average bonus by Superior Will at Paragon; we're still talking 5 levels. Assuming of course that the PCs wouldn't wipe out such a foe in the first 2 rounds, so that makes it 20 levels to have this happen 9 times.

The odds are against it happening as frequently for anyone else.

I don't think it's accurate to just look at the monster list as a whole. You don't usually just go through the MM fighting one after another.

When playing a "themed" campaign, some types of attack may be temporarily more common. Think an "underdark" adventure where you're spending a level or two squaring off against a colony of Mind Flayers, for example. There is going to be a whole lot of dazing and stunning going on.

Theme or no theme, being saved from Stun or Daze 9 times due a single +2 to +4 is not something that going to happen to most PCs. And if the DM is throwing multiple Daze or Stun vs. Will opponents against the PCs in encounter after encounter, he's more or less forcing all of the players to take feats like Superior Will and basically removing feat choice selection from the hands of his players due to the deadliness of the campaign.

And if the DM is doing this, one has to wonder how many times the PC has gotten Dazed or Stunned because of good DM rolling in such a campaign.


Many of us have played encounters where a given foe can Stun multiple times in a single encounter and we learned that it is ZERO fun for the players. So, most reasonable DMs shy away from it. Daze is a different story, but Stunned is a condition that many DMs save for the proper moment (like climatic fights) and even then, it's not something that most DMs throw a lot of at the players.
 

RobTheMan and KamikazeMidget have summed up the pro-feat arguments pretty well, I think. They do provide another avenue for power creep, but there was plenty of that already (kits, new spells, et cetera).

To the extent that I have issues with feats, it's with "stackable feats," where you use a feat to boost your character's numeric abilities (e.g., Unarmored Agility, Weapon Focus, et cetera). I think feats should give you new options, not strengthen your existing ones. That would address a lot of the power creep issues, reduce system mastery, and make feats more interesting.
 

Spoken like a true player.

No DM who would consider house-ruling or banning a RAW gives a :):):):) about what players think, let alone how many lives you've saved.

Ummmm....what? Maybe you should speak for yourself. If I'm houseruling things I always discuss it with my players before for a variety of reasons.

1) Setting expectations. If you are sitting down for a game of 4e, there are established rules that all players expect. If suddenly I tell them "Oh, and Fighters are too powerful, sorry they're banned, oh and no Twin Strike, and Skill Checks will be determined with a d100 die" I would expect the players to be pretty annoyed if they built a fighter, or ranger...

2) Other POV's. I'll have an opinion on something, but others often (always?) have different perspectives and by considering a problem (as it's likely a problem if you're houseruling) from different angles you'll have a better understanding of the issue (plus see from your player's perspective)

Also, if you're the autocratic, "I'm the DM and you'll do what I tell you, this is my game " person I'd imagine you will find yourself without players pretty soon. If you instead say "Hey players, I've got an issue with X and I'd like to have Y as a houserule, what do you htink? Here's my issue with X and why I think Y is better for everyone"

End of the day D&D is a group game and one person (even if they are the DM) should care about what others think as the whole point of it is to have fun, it's a game, you can't win at D&D.
 

Theme or no theme, being saved from Stun or Daze 9 times due a single +2 to +4 is not something that going to happen to most PCs. And if the DM is throwing multiple Daze or Stun vs. Will opponents against the PCs in encounter after encounter, he's more or less forcing all of the players to take feats like Superior Will and basically removing feat choice selection from the hands of his players due to the deadliness of the campaign.
It's not the +2/3/4 that's saving a PC from Stun or Daze, it's the added saving throw at the start of the PCs turn, even when the effects aren't "save ends." That will happen to a lot of PCs. Even at low level. As an example, I've been grooming a module for adaptation to my next campaign and there is a level 2 encounter containing multiple opponents with stunning capability.

I also don't buy that a DM running a Mind Flayer campaign arc is "forcing" anything on PCs. Players fought Mind Flayers before HotFL introduced Superior Will came along, and they will continue to do so without using that feat. Not everyone qualifies for it. Furthermore, some players will continue to not pick that feat if it doesn't fit their concept. Sure, if the entire campaign is centred around such creatures, players are highly incentivized to take it if they can, but even then it begins to make sense in a role playing context.

And if the DM is doing this, one has to wonder how many times the PC has gotten Dazed or Stunned because of good DM rolling in such a campaign.
Again, this isn't the point of taking Superior Will. It's a nice boost to that defence, but it's the save vs. effects at the Start of your turn that make it a lifesaver.

Many of us have played encounters where a given foe can Stun multiple times in a single encounter and we learned that it is ZERO fun for the players. So, most reasonable DMs shy away from it. Daze is a different story, but Stunned is a condition that many DMs save for the proper moment (like climatic fights) and even then, it's not something that most DMs throw a lot of at the players.
I'm inclined to agree, but then, some DMs don't give a crap either. And there are lots more things that daze, and saving against that is just as good sometimes, like in a case where you are dazed and prone. You might as well be stunned, because there goes your 1 action for the round on getting up. Or Dazed and grabbed. Or Dazed and Your Move +1 away from anything you can attack.
 

Spoken like a true player.

No DM who would consider house-ruling or banning a RAW gives a :):):):) about what players think, let alone how many lives you've saved.

I really hope this was supposed to end in "[/sarcasm]" or something similar...

As a DM, if I pulled that view out of my :):):), I'd expect my players to string me up.

As a player, if my DM decided he didn't give a gorram hoot about what I think... I'd probably toss him off of a balcony...

It a social hobby, the group's opinion matters. I think too many people forget this.

+1 to everything R1 just said.

@R1, as frequently happens, I need to spread the love before giving you more XP. Props to you for the above, though.
 

Remove ads

Top