Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pyromantic" data-source="post: 5843696" data-attributes="member: 6690699">It's interesting to me how much people differ in their point of view regarding feats.  I agree with much of what the OP says, though perhaps not all. Let me first say that I'm playing a Goliath Warden in a 4E campaign right now, and I've been deciding through several different possible feats: Guard of stone, markings of the victor, a multi-class feat, and so on.  This I consider good design.  Each of the things I'm thinking about provides significant benefit, but each in a different way, and (perhaps most importantly), each in a different context.  What I detest are feats that represent math fixes or are so broad in scope that they are practically essential (*cough* weapon expertise *cough cough*).  I think feats should provide significant bonuses but should rarely if ever provide static bonuses that mean they will effectively come into play every round of combat.  This also includes certain feat chains in 3.5 that optimize you in such a specific way that you end up trying to do the same thing every single round.  Similarly, feats that simply feel necessary for a given build to reach basic functionality have got to go. I don't have a problem with feats that develop racial abilities, fighting styles, options in and out of combat, substantial bonuses to situations that may happen once or twice in a fight, and the like.  That said, I agree that any race/class should feel defined and functional without feats, and that every feat choice should feel like exactly that: a choice.</blockquote>

Verification