Feats and the "Awesome!" Factor

[infax]

This came to me as I read the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and later read on the boards how it was really not a bad choice.

It seems Two-Weapon Fighting is a reasonably good feat in spite of most people's initial impression. 4e's Two-Weapon Fighting and Astral Fire or 3e's Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization are all good feats that offer the character good (or great) mathematical return for the cost of a measly feat choice. None of those feats, however, are "awesome" in the same vein that 3e's Disarm, Deflect Arrows or Whirlwind Attack were. And that, to me, is really an important point.

For me, the most important aspect when I select a feat, or a power in 4e, or any ability in mostly any rpg is the "awesome" factor. I want my abilities to shine, to stand out, to be noticeable whenever I use them. 4e got that well with powers, limiting them to a few uses each combat helps each use to be even more impressive as it is infrequent. Feats, however, are noticeably less awesome in 4e. I guess that may be why so many people felt like they were underpowered in 4e.

I get it that, for many people, the actual effectiveness of a feat (power, spell, ability) is the most important aspect. They feel like the rpg is really a challenge to their personal abilities and they should prove they can find the very best combination of abilities for their characters. In a game, however, ostensibly designed in such a way that the characters can hardly fail if they follow some not-so-complicated (and notably less implied and ever more explicitly presented) rules, I find little motivation to exceed myself in the math of character optimization.

From what I read so far, character's are expected to consistently win any combat stacking them against similar level monsters. Even against monsters two or three levels above the characters' level, the players have really to play their abilities most inefectively to suffer a real chance of failure.

Having no interest in character optimization or expending considerable energy to find a way to improve my character's average damage per round, I find myself drawn to other considerations. A character that provides great memories when I recount his exploits is my main attraction to the game. Of course, an optimized character may allow for great scenes, that is not my point of contention. But it feels more rewarding to be able to tell a friend how, after some effort, my character disarmed the BBEG's Lifedrinking Sword than how I managed to kill the BBEG in 5 rounds instead of 7 because I was doing a better damage average.

Fewer effects, fewer repeatable effects and effects with a big oomph may be why so many people seemed to enjoy playing spellcasters even in AD&D 2e (where playing a low level spellcaster could be a chore and too few games went on long enough for characters to reach high levels), why the 3e Monk seemed so overpowered at the release (a new ability at each level!) and why Metamagic abilities seemed so great the first time I read them (Maximize! Extend! Quicken!!).

All in all, 4e feats are not bad, not bad at all, but I really few no compulsion (I can't find any inspiration) to taking most or any of them (except, perhaps, Ritual Caster, as that opens the avenues to some impressive, if seldomly useful, new abilities for any character).

I remain in hope that later supplements may change that, although, many recent 3e supplements presented ever more mathematically attractive - but hopelessly flavorless - feats.

 

[greyscale1]

Not sure if you have the books yet. If not, hold out, trust me - there is some awesome stuff waiting for you there.

You use the word Oomph. Let me put it this way.

You said it already, but feats are less awesome in 4e. At first I was a bit irritated, but looking at powers, it really feels like the awesomeness was simple moved from one place to another.

Feats are now simple boosters that you can use to refine your character further. They are no longer... well, FEATS. Yeah its a misnomer, and getting a Focus might have described it better in 4e. Anyway, its important not to think that cool things like whirlwind attack and disarm are gone just because the feats are more subtle. The power system certainly allows for more sweet and exciting and varied moves. So the system has not lost any of its unique and thrilling attack moments.

 

[phil500]

From what I read so far, character's are expected to consistently win any combat stacking them against similar level monsters. Even against monsters two or three levels above the characters' level, the players have really to play their abilities most inefectively to suffer a real chance of failure.

that is true of one encounter. but I think you missed the point- characters will need to win 5+ combats of similar level without full rests.

failure happens quite often with even with moderately skilled play: look at keep on the shadowfell's infamous A3, or the black dragon encounter from DDXP.

i too am disappointed with the feats in 4E

 

[Dracollich]

When I sat down and recreated my 3.5v dwarf into a 4E version I was able to look at feats in a different perspective.

IMO, the powers are what make classes unique. Choice selection of powers determined how my character would handle encounters differently compared to others of the same class.

When it came to feats, they turned my character from just some stats into the character that is my hero in the campaign.

 

[Thasmodious]

The awesome has been moved from feats to powers in 4e. Your third level wizard can find himself surrounded by enemies, hit them with a Fire Shroud, action point, hit the most clustered group with Burning Hands, then use Expeditious Retreat to streak 60' across the battlefield into the relative safety of his tank like companions. That's awesome. The feat's job is to take that awesome and say, "oh yeah, and I get a +1 to damage."

 

[infax]

I have the books. I can't say I have read them from cover to cover or even that I have a very sure handle on the system. I have played a couple of adventures though (official WotC adventures from events) and have a general feel for the system.

I undersand that powers are the defining factor for characters. My point was, however, that feats do not seem to contribute much to the game. And if they don't contribute much to the game, I can't see what is their relevance. Even marginally relevant 3e abilities (like some skills: profession, craft, sleight of hand or knowledge of nobility) allowed you to do something specific in the game, not something that you already did but with a statistcally higher chance of success. To my view, either feats should be removed or they should allow you to somehow characterize your character in some relevant fashion.

I concur with everyone here that stated that powers allow you to do some very impressive actions (though not exactly the way I expected to be able to do them), but feats just don't.

What I expect, is that future sourcebooks will provide more interesting feats.

 

[Cadfan]

I undersand that powers are the defining factor for characters. My point was, however, that feats do not seem to contribute much to the game. And if they don't contribute much to the game, I can't see what is their relevance.

They're relevance is that somewhere the game needs small benefits. If everything in the game were a big, flashy addition to your character, no one would ever be able to select smaller abilities like training in a skill without wrecking their character.

The way feats work in 4e follows naturally from the way powers work. If 4e feats didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.

What I expect, is that future sourcebooks will provide more interesting feats.

What I expect is that future sourcebooks will provide more paragon tier feats, which tend to be more interesting. Heroic tier will remain about the same.

 

[infax]

that is true of one encounter. but I think you missed the point- characters will need to win 5+ combats of similar level without full rests.

Why would characters need 5+ combats without full rest? Is that implied in the design (or maybe explicitly stated in the DMG... I haven't fully read the books)? It was my understanding, though, that the current system allowed for a more organic style of play. GMs could do one combat a day (with slightly tougher monsters to account for full access to dailies and full allotment of healing surges) without too much trouble. Given that I don't often GM dungeons, planning a session with 4 combats in a single day usually seem a little strained. And it has been said that adventures with tight time restrictions can get old very fast.

I fully expect players in most games I play to have an encounter, sweat through it and then don't expect an encounter for some time after that.

failure happens quite often with even with moderately skilled play: look at keep on the shadowfell's infamous A3, or the black dragon encounter from DDXP.

As for failure with moderately skilled play, I am not familiar at all with KotS. The black dragon, however, was a level 4 encounter for level 1 characters, at the end of a series of moderately tough combat encounters. It was designed to be a killer, wasn't it? If you need a combat against a dragon, 3 levels above the party, to boot, to provide a challenge, the game is pretty much stacked for PC success, don't you concur?

Or maybe I'm mistaken and the monster levels aren't indicative of the appropriateness of a creature for a group of characters of comparable level.

 

[infax]

They're relevance is that somewhere the game needs small benefits. If everything in the game were a big, flashy addition to your character, no one would ever be able to select smaller abilities like training in a skill without wrecking their character.

Ok, I understand there should be abilities comparable to skill training. I think skill training still provide you a significant characterization (+5 to a skill sets you reasonably above the performance level of an untrained character) whereas Weapon Focus (Light Blades) hardly makes you clearly better at fighting with daggers and rapiers than anyone else (a single +5 bonus once per encounter would, for instance). But I can agree with your point, anyway.

The way feats work in 4e follows naturally from the way powers work. If 4e feats didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.

That above, however, I don't get. I don't see that natural following. Care to clarify? Explaining why 4e feats would have to be invented would be good to.

 

[Cadfan]

That above, however, I don't get. I don't see that natural following. Care to clarify? Explaining why 4e feats would have to be invented would be good to.

If you take little bonuses, mix them with big bonuses, and tell people to pick what they like, then no one ever takes the little bonuses. There are little bonuses to be had- lots of them. If we want them to be usable, we can't have them be in the same pool as big bonuses. If feats were filled with big bonuses, we'd need mini-feats for the small bonuses. Or else we'd never use the small bonuses at all, and we'd end up with the worst flaws of the 3e feat system.

If 4e didn't have a way to choose small bonuses, people would miss them, and a way would have to be invented for 5e.

In the meantime, the basic system functions. Powers for big effects, feats for small.