Essentials feat too powerful???

[sigfile]

If a player has to pay a significant increase in ability score points in order to bump 14 to 15 to 16 to 17 to 18 when designing the PC, it's not very game balancing if someone else can go buy a Defense feat and get some extra bonuses like the Superior Will save before their turn. Granted, the first PC gets a feat too, but the point remains.

So, a character that puts forth a heavy feat investment is more-or-less on par with a character that makes a heavy stat-point investment. Except that the the high-stat character can choose to make the same feat investment and remain ahead, or he can choose to invest in other stuff.

And this is... bad, somehow, for the high-stat character?

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Another player comes along, puts a boatload of points into only two ability scores, one of them a 20, has a sudden weak NAD because they have two lousy stats, and suddenly, that PC is just as defensive in that Defense as my PC because of a single feat.

That's a valid perspective, and the DM would be justified in deciding not to allow those feats. I'm not convinced that justifies a blanket condemnation.

Well, I would prefer it if any PC could charge a foe and knock him prone based on maneuver rules instead of power, feat or item specialization.

Player: "I want to tackle that guy to the ground."
DM: "Sorry, you don't have the right feat or power for that."

I have no problem with customization, I have more of a problem with the fact that common everyday things cannot be done by these supposed heroes without the proper customization.

I'd love to see you start a thread on this idea.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, a character that puts forth a heavy feat investment is more-or-less on par with a character that makes a heavy stat-point investment. Except that the the high-stat character can choose to make the same feat investment and remain ahead, or he can choose to invest in other stuff.

And this is... bad, somehow, for the high-stat character?

I was only pointing out that a single feat (not necessarily what I would consider a heavy feat investment) can negate one of the main detrimental aspects of point buy. It is not bad for the high-stat character, it actually encourages people to create high-stat characters at the expense of another defense which can just be handled by a single feat. Players are actually more encouraged to design one dimensional PCs because one of the main detriments of this, low NADs, can be negated.

Because the feat bonuses in Essentials are so high compared to the original core feats and the fact that they can be purchased at level one, it changes the balance of the game system. There used to be a significant NAD penalty in at least one defense for taking a 20 stat PC. Now that main penalty can be negated at level one with a single feat. Just another illustration of how Essential feats are overly potent.

Player: "I want semi-decent Defenses for my Fighter."

Core DM: "Put an 18(16) in Str, a 14 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis. AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12"

Esentials DM: "Put a 20 in Str, a 10 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis and take Lightning Reflexes. You get the same defenses: AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12, but you also get the equivalent of taking the Weapon Focus and the Expertise feats for the cost of a single feat. And, you can still take both of those feats later on."

This isn't game breaking, but it sure as heck is more potent than before the Essentials feats and the errata to the core feats.

 

[renau1g]

Superior Will requires a signficant investment in Wis for most PC's, FWIW.

Prerequisite: Wisdom 15 or Charisma 15

For most melee classes that's a huge opportunity cost (Pit Fighters and Artful rogues may be exception)

 

[Mapache]

How would 4E be a bad game without feats?

Because then there would far fewer ways to customize your character mechanically and pick out awesome combos that ride the edge of brokenness, causing the game to appeal to you instead of to me.

 

[Dausuul]

I was only pointing out that a single feat (not necessarily what I would consider a heavy feat investment) can negate one of the main detrimental aspects of point buy. It is not bad for the high-stat character, it actually encourages people to create high-stat characters at the expense of another defense which can just be handled by a single feat. Players are actually more encouraged to design one dimensional PCs because one of the main detriments of this, low NADs, can be negated.

Because the feat bonuses in Essentials are so high compared to the original core feats and the fact that they can be purchased at level one, it changes the balance of the game system. There used to be a significant NAD penalty in at least one defense for taking a 20 stat PC. Now that main penalty can be negated at level one with a single feat. Just another illustration of how Essential feats are overly potent.

Player: "I want semi-decent Defenses for my Fighter."

Core DM: "Put an 18(16) in Str, a 14 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis. AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12"

Esentials DM: "Put a 20 in Str, a 10 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis and take Lightning Reflexes. You get the same defenses: AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12, but you also get the equivalent of taking the Weapon Focus and the Expertise feats for the cost of a single feat. And, you can still take both of those feats later on."

This isn't game breaking, but it sure as heck is more potent than before the Essentials feats and the errata to the core feats.

The errata to the core feats is what's relevant here. The Essentials feats provide a counter-incentive; you have to have a 15 in at least one of the relevant stats in order to take any of the new Essentials defense feats.

 

[KarinsDad]

The errata to the core feats is what's relevant here. The Essentials feats provide a counter-incentive; you have to have a 15 in at least one of the relevant stats in order to take any of the new Essentials defense feats.

Do you think that if Essentials would have never came out, that they would have made the changes to the core feats?

 

[twilsemail]

Do you think that if Essentials would have never came out, that they would have made the changes to the core feats?

Not to steal Dausuul's thunder here, but I'm going to put in my $.02.

I feel that the need in revision of many different rules is what lead to Essentials in the first place. Feats are a hefty portion of that need. Had we not gotten Essentials, we'd have gotten something similiar.

Personally, I like the mechanism with which they delivered these necessary changes.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Not to steal Dausuul's thunder here, but I'm going to put in my $.02.

I feel that the need in revision of many different rules is what lead to Essentials in the first place. Feats are a hefty portion of that need. Had we not gotten Essentials, we'd have gotten something similiar.

Personally, I like the mechanism with which they delivered these necessary changes.

I agree, and if we're being honest, the feat bloat is only a part of the problem.

The real enemy is option bloat, which includes feats, powers, items, races, classes, and so on, and for my purposes would be defined in terms of the sheer number of subpar choices compared with a few decent choices.

The answer to this would have been to only release quality stuff in the first place, but that horse left the barn a long time ago. So what can be done about it now? Essentials was a pretty good answer, I think.

In addition to providing some streamlined choices for newer players, it also has some with a more "old school" feel to them, that are also much, much less reliant upon a constant flow of new powers. That can only be a good thing; do we really need 7500 powers across 40 classes?

Not when most of them are crappy options. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the only feats they released were as good as the options in Essentials. They should all be that good, and if that means releasing less material, I'm all for it.

The same goes for classes, and races, and powers.

It needed to happen sooner or later, if for no other reason than to stop the game collapsing from its own weight.

I know it would probably anger a lot of people, and I've said this before, but I'd like to see them retire a lot of that subpar content. That doesn't mean you can't use it, it would just be marked on the compendium and in the builder as 'retired' and not available for "official" use in tourneys and such. That would allow you to filter all content to only show non-retired options, vastly simplifying things.

 

[Victim]

The impact of Superior Will can also come from monster powers where saves cascade. For example, in one encounter, there were two Yochol Tempters.

Seductive Glare (minor 1/round; recharges when the target
saves) • Charm, Reliable
Ranged 10; +23 vs. Will; the target is dazed (save ends). First
- JILED Saving Throw: The target is stunned (save ends). Second
-ailed Saving Throw: The target is dominated (save ends).

The character with Superior Will has to fail 2 saves (the bonus save, and then the normal save) to become stunned, so besides the initial defense bonus, having the feat is cutting the chance of stun in half, as well as vastly reducing the chance of dominate.

Because the feat bonuses in Essentials are so high compared to the original core feats and the fact that they can be purchased at level one, it changes the balance of the game system. There used to be a significant NAD penalty in at least one defense for taking a 20 stat PC. Now that main penalty can be negated at level one with a single feat. Just another illustration of how Essential feats are overly potent.

Player: "I want semi-decent Defenses for my Fighter."

Core DM: "Put an 18(16) in Str, a 14 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis. AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12"

Esentials DM: "Put a 20 in Str, a 10 in Dex, and a 14 in Wis and take Lightning Reflexes. You get the same defenses: AC 19, Fort 16, Reflex 12, Will 12, but you also get the equivalent of taking the Weapon Focus and the Expertise feats for the cost of a single feat. And, you can still take both of those feats later on."

This isn't game breaking, but it sure as heck is more potent than before the Essentials feats and the errata to the core feats.

Emphasis mine.

You know what? Screw level one. Of course things look skewed when characters are basically incomplete - even things that are core or obvious to take are often delayed at level 1.

A fighter wanting to emphasize his non AC defenses will want roughly the same stuff whether or not he starts with an 18 or 20. Once they both have more than one feat, they can both have their expertise, defense boosters, etc. The real difference is still, as always, whether or not you want the +1 attack and damage, or the defenses+other stuff (mostly feat access).

Your core fighter can get Heavy Blade Expertise, Shield Expertise, or the Scale armor feats and is close to qualifying for Heavy Blade Mastery. STR+WIS sets the Essentials Fighter up for what? Polearm stuff? The core stat spread can take Polearm Momentum quickly with his higher dex, and then combo Hvy Blade Expertise with Polearm Gambit. With access to the same feats, the more even stat spread could pick up Superior Reflexes instead of Lightning Reflexes.

Your supposedly same thing but improved Essentials stat spread is hardly unambiguously superior outside of a fleeting moment. At level 4-7, a 17 starting stat dominates an 18 starting stat, which doesn't change that the 18 starting offers some advantages a lot of the time.

While I hate to sound like I'm contradicting myself - since I do feel like Essentials feats usually outshine other feats that exist in the same niche - a lot of core feats are really awesome. Frost Cheese is core. Polearm Gambit is core. Etc. If you're going to compare pure Essentials characters with pure PHB 1 characters, then of course the Essentials characters are going to have bigger numbers. However, they'll be lacking in other areas and options. Heck, the whole point of Essentials stuff like the Slayer is to gut the options of the class in exchange for consistent bigger numbers.

PS: Based on the ACs of your fighters, they're using Scale+Shield. So they should have 14 Ref instead of 12.