Essentials feat too powerful???

[666Sinner666]

Regarding my list of feats above, and the responses to them:

I *like* those feats and combinations. I'm not saying they are overpowered, but they are better than those that came before, and not getting the notice that they should.

I've used those feats in several encounters and they have saved PC lives THREE times. That's in just a few months of play.

I'm not sure why anyone would compare a level 16 magic item with a feat that can be taken by many characters at level 1, but if you must make the comparison, the Circlet loses badly. Superior Will does everything that the Circlet does AND allows the extra save even against "end of turn" effects AND grants a +2/3/4 bonus to Will. I'd grab the feat in a heartbeat and save my level 16 magic item for a +4 weapon -- unless you can find me a Heroic Tier feat that gives a +4 to attack and damage?

I missed your response sir and I apologize. Obviously I misconstrued your post as you were pointing out exactly the same thing as I was in my reply. The ill is mine sir and I apologize.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I missed your response sir and I apologize. Obviously I misconstrued your post as you were pointing out exactly the same thing as I was in my reply. The ill is mine sir and I apologize.

You missed another point she raised earlier as well. :/

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I missed your response sir and I apologize. Obviously I misconstrued your post as you were pointing out exactly the same thing as I was in my reply. The ill is mine sir and I apologize.

This is one of the funniest posts I've read on EN World ever. I'm not sure it was even intentional, but it's very funny.

We need a chart... prestidigitalis, female, Shemeska, male, Charwoman Gene, we leave as an exercise for the student.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.

If you want mechanical differences between characters, feats do a fine job of providing so.

If you are happy with fluff differences between characters, they are not needed as much.

If you do not like feats, ban em, easy enough to do.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

This is one of the funniest posts I've read on EN World ever. I'm not sure it was even intentional, but it's very funny.

We need a chart... prestidigitalis, female, Shemeska, male, Charwoman Gene, we leave as an exercise for the student.

Charwoman Gene: Old-time ENWorlder whom I remember fondly from the dear old days of 3e, when I posted under the 'nym Elseth Arnelian, an identity I sadly lost the login for during my "lost years". Hi Gene.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I still find that I had to make some tough choices, which is usually an indicator that there is some good design. Previous feats were a little too specific and only added minor bonuses in certain situations. I found that these poorly written feats simply forced players to choose feats that would be more relevant on a regular basis. Basically creating the same problem as having feats that were "no brainers". I dont mind if the new feats are better, as long as there are a significant number of these "better" feats, then players will still be forced to make choices.

I can see how a DM may find new feats like Improved defenses, which help all your defenses and scale with tier, better than the prior feats which made you pick a separate feat for each defense and didn't scale with level. Sure that's a no brainer, but begs the question whether the original feat selection wasn't a bit too specific. I never got them as you have to use your feats wisely and spending 3 feats for a marginal improvement in your defenses basically meant those feats may as well have never been printed as I certainly wasn't going to get them. Now, I actually have to decide whether I want improved defenses or something that helps me hit, or do more damage, or hide better, or improve my healing, or give me more hp, etc......but that actually makes me feel like I didn't waste a feat for what amounts to a tad of flavor. I want some steak with my sizzle......

 

[Mapache]

I still find that I had to make some tough choices, which is usually an indicator that there is some good design.

Oh yeah, for any given character, I can usually come up with eight to ten must-have feats, and another two or three that would be very nice, mechanically. That means that I actually have to make tough choices as to which to take first, so the system is working. (And, when you run out of good stuff in late Paragon, you're almost up to Epic and it's time to consider a whole new pile of awesome feats!)

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I can see how a DM may find new feats like Improved defenses, which help all your defenses and scale with tier, better than the prior feats which made you pick a separate feat for each defense and didn't scale with level. Sure that's a no brainer, but begs the question whether the original feat selection wasn't a bit too specific.

In addition, while it may be a no brainer to take the newer version of the feats rather than the old version, it still requires a functioning brain to decide between Improved Defenses and (for example) Master at Arms, Intelligent Blademaster, Backstabber, etc.

Customization is about choosing between offense, defense, mobility, durability, utility, support, etc., or some combination or balance among them. That's the point that seems to get overlooked by many. It doesn't matter so much if a certain feat is a great defensive feat -- those who want defense will take it, but many don't and won't.

One of my group's members has taken Linguist twice, sorely wants to take it a third time, and I applaud the choice. 4e: the big tent of RPGs.

 

[KarinsDad]

I still find that I had to make some tough choices, which is usually an indicator that there is some good design.

Or, it might be an indication that there are over 3000 feats.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can see how a DM may find new feats like Improved defenses, which help all your defenses and scale with tier, better than the prior feats which made you pick a separate feat for each defense and didn't scale with level. Sure that's a no brainer, but begs the question whether the original feat selection wasn't a bit too specific. I never got them as you have to use your feats wisely and spending 3 feats for a marginal improvement in your defenses basically meant those feats may as well have never been printed as I certainly wasn't going to get them.

Although the benefit was relatively minor, I typically took the one for my lowest NAD during Paragon tier. The reason is because of the riders to the damage. Sure, +2 to Reflex is only going to help once per level, but it's once per level that some additional Rider wasn't going to happen as well.

As more and more feats came out though, the benefit was less useful. I actually remember a few players saying that they didn't like most of the feats for the first 6 months of 4E and couldn't decide because nothing looked appealing (I've also seen this issue for PathFinder feats for spellcasters). But as time goes on and the number of feats grew, it got to the point that something like Lightning Reflexes did, as you say, become too specific. It doesn't help often enough to make it a worthwhile selection.