FR: Players Guide to Faerun is out what do you think?

[Haffrung Helleyes]

martial

the martial weapon proficiency feat doesn't have simple weapon proficiency as a prereq, no.

And the fact that it breaks the balance of the EK is exactly what I meant in my first post. An EK now gets access to high level spells as quickly as a sorcerer, plus he gets full BAB for all but 5 levels of his progression -- IE, his BAB at 20th level is better than a clerics.

The one thing that mitigates this is that Spellsword is a really good PRC for an EK character to pick up a level in, and the Wis5/EKX can't do this because he doesn't have proficiency in all armor.

Ken

 

[I'm A Banana]

And if all feats were created equal to begin with, that might be true. But as it is, some normal feats are just better than others anyway. Getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff (or whatever) isn't as good as getting (to rehash that example) +4 to initiative.

It's a difficult choice for some. A rogue for instance....+2 to Hide/Move Silently, +4 to Initiative, it's really just a matter of which one he wants to do better.....a bard or a sneaky charlatan type getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff is at least as good as a +4 to initiative. +2 to Listen and Spot is pretty nice for anyone who want to avoid the surprise round. +2 Search and Appraise useful for those rogues who like to find the treasure, and give the dim bulbs the cheap stuff. It is as good.

Um, you do realize that there's a two-part article in Dragon (part 2 in next month's issue) that gives regional feats for the Greyhawk campaign, right?

Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles. FR now is more powerful than the "base D&D world," with these feats. Not significantly so, but noticably so.

To be fair, that's just your interpretation.

Well, according to the DMG: "Never introduce a major artifact into a campaign without careful consideration. These are the most potent of magic items, cabable of altering the balance of a campaign.".....I'd say my interpretation is pretty well founded. Aritfacts aren't powerful because they're rare, they're powerful because they're plot devices, not really meant to be tools for the PC's to use throughout their careers (like a feat).

And not at all more powerful than a single level of Fighter, which would do the same thing...hey, that means Fighter is your uber-class, isnt it?!

It means that taking one level of a class is a bigger cost then a feat slot. There shouldn't be a feat that let you cast all the spells a first-level Sorcerer can cast, either.

But there is a cost. I play an elf ranger. At 1st level I get one feat. One. If I could choose that powerfull 1st level regional feat at any level, I might wait and take it at 6th.
Like this:
1st: Point Blank Shot
3rd: Percise Shot
6th: Regional Feat

But limiting that regional feat to first level only means I now must put off Point Blank Shot & Percise Shot like this:
1st: Regional Feat
3rd: Point Blank Shot
6th: Percise Shot

That is a cost. You do "pay an extra cost for that +1". Two levels that I can't use PBS (1 & 2) and three levels I can't use Percise Shot (3, 4 & 5).

That's not a greater cost than any other feat, man. By taking ANY feat, you're delaying your acquisition of others. There still isn't a cost for that +1, because I could choose Improved Initiative or Skill Focus instead and achieve the same effect, and neither of those have the power of the regional feat. Does this mean that Improved Initiative is suddenly a weak feat, because if they take it at first level, and they're not a human or a fighter, they're delyaing their acquisition of greater powers? That seems to be specious resoning at best.

By limiting a feat to only being available at 1st level, it can be a slightly more powerful feat without upsetting the ballance.

Not really, because 'only at first level' isn't a *cost*, or any greater cost than any other feat that is taken once. I could put a feat at 3rd level, make it a '3rd level only feat', and then make it more powerful than similar feats...is that balanced? How about a more powerful 18th level feat, or 12th level feat? Saying that you can only do this at a certain point is just a mandate on how you can spend your +1. It's like saying that you can spend it on attack or AC, but ONLY those....and you can only do it ONCE, or NEVER....the +1 still exists, and it's still more powerful,a nd there's no greater cost for it than there is for any other feat just because you claim that it can only be taken at a certain level.

 

[jasamcarl]

It's a difficult choice for some. A rogue for instance....+2 to Hide/Move Silently, +4 to Initiative, it's really just a matter of which one he wants to do better.....a bard or a sneaky charlatan type getting +2 to Diplomacy and Bluff is at least as good as a +4 to initiative. +2 to Listen and Spot is pretty nice for anyone who want to avoid the surprise round. +2 Search and Appraise useful for those rogues who like to find the treasure, and give the dim bulbs the cheap stuff. It is as good.



Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles. FR now is more powerful than the "base D&D world," with these feats. Not significantly so, but noticably so.



Well, according to the DMG: "Never introduce a major artifact into a campaign without careful consideration. These are the most potent of magic items, cabable of altering the balance of a campaign.".....I'd say my interpretation is pretty well founded. Aritfacts aren't powerful because they're rare, they're powerful because they're plot devices, not really meant to be tools for the PC's to use throughout their careers (like a feat).



It means that taking one level of a class is a bigger cost then a feat slot. There shouldn't be a feat that let you cast all the spells a first-level Sorcerer can cast, either.



That's not a greater cost than any other feat, man. By taking ANY feat, you're delaying your acquisition of others. There still isn't a cost for that +1, because I could choose Improved Initiative or Skill Focus instead and achieve the same effect, and neither of those have the power of the regional feat. Does this mean that Improved Initiative is suddenly a weak feat, because if they take it at first level, and they're not a human or a fighter, they're delyaing their acquisition of greater powers? That seems to be specious resoning at best.



Not really, because 'only at first level' isn't a *cost*, or any greater cost than any other feat that is taken once. I could put a feat at 3rd level, make it a '3rd level only feat', and then make it more powerful than similar feats...is that balanced? How about a more powerful 18th level feat, or 12th level feat? Saying that you can only do this at a certain point is just a mandate on how you can spend your +1. It's like saying that you can spend it on attack or AC, but ONLY those....and you can only do it ONCE, or NEVER....the +1 still exists, and it's still more powerful,a nd there's no greater cost for it than there is for any other feat just because you claim that it can only be taken at a certain level.

You're missing the point. Skill Focus is STILL a weak feat. Improved Initiative is decent, but I'd still rather take than than the overwhelming majority of regional feats in the book. When the designers said they made regional feats stronger, they meant in comparision to single feats that didn't act as the first step in a feat chain. Most people will STILL take power attack over most of the regional feats. Thus there is an oppurtunity cost to taking a regional feat over point blank shot or dodge, because you are delaying the aquisition of more useful feats farther down in the chain. For humans and fighters, this is a real cost even at first level.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Thus there is an oppurtunity cost to taking a regional feat over point blank shot or dodge, because you are delaying the aquisition of more useful feats farther down in the chain.

How is that a bigger cost than Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, a +2/+2 feat? Not all feats are chosen to form a chain. 'Delaying the chain' isn't a cost because (a) it doesn't for some characters (HUMAN FIGHTERS ARE THE NEW ELVES!!!!, to be ludicrous about it), and (b) not every feat forms a chain.

 

[jasamcarl]

the martial weapon proficiency feat doesn't have simple weapon proficiency as a prereq, no.

And the fact that it breaks the balance of the EK is exactly what I meant in my first post. An EK now gets access to high level spells as quickly as a sorcerer, plus he gets full BAB for all but 5 levels of his progression -- IE, his BAB at 20th level is better than a clerics.

The one thing that mitigates this is that Spellsword is a really good PRC for an EK character to pick up a level in, and the Wis5/EKX can't do this because he doesn't have proficiency in all armor.

Ken

Except that the wiz10/ek10 will on average have 30 or so less hps, have to deal with arcane spell failure if they wish to wear armor (not as big a deal), have a lower caster level, and lack the clerics few key buffs that allows it to easily pass between a caster and martial roll. So even with only a one docked caster level, you will only be a suboptimal caster and crappy fighter. Quicken Spell can help somewhat, but if the best you can handle is to fling 5th level spells at 20th level while shooting off the crappy ranged attack (you'd make an awful tank), I wouldn't be worried.

 

[jasamcarl]

How is that a bigger cost than Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, a +2/+2 feat? Not all feats are chosen to form a chain. 'Delaying the chain' isn't a cost because (a) it doesn't for some characters (HUMAN FIGHTERS ARE THE NEW ELVES!!!!, to be ludicrous about it), and (b) not every feat forms a chain.

My point is that skill focus and the skill enhancing feats are in fact weak, so playing of them as a point of comparison when it comes to balance is pointless. Improved Initiative is better and quite frankly is still better than many of the regional feats i'm looking at in the book. You are overstating your case.

 

[jasamcarl]

And I never implied human fighters are too strong. Extra feats are their key advantage, one that is mitigated by the taking of feats that don't fill prereqs. Every class which is heavily feat dependent tends to go into a tree, whether human or not, so they all pay some cost. Other races (and some other classes) have other advantages to make up for their relative lack of feats. Human fighters are simply hurt the most.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point is that skill focus and the skill enhancing feats are in fact weak, so playing of them as a point of comparison when it comes to balance is pointless. Improved Initiative is better and quite frankly is still better than many of the regional feats i'm looking at in the book. You are overstating your case.

If Improved Init. is better, than the designers still did their jobs wrong because they specifically said they were creating more powerful feats.

But my point is that while you may have a point with skill focus (+4 IMC, but that's irrelevant), skill enhancing feats are not weak...neither is improved initiative....neither is Martial Weapon Proficiency. They're all supremely useful for the characters who would use them (a warrior/wizard, someone who specializes in the skills, someone who wants to play a fast character). And they're the same cost as any regional feat, which provides a greater bonus than them (or, probably, *should*, by the designer's own logic)....if you're going to argue that core feats are weaker and/or more powerful (other than skill focus ), I'd have to ask how much free time you have to be doing more playtesting than all of 3.5....

The Facts are that the designers made regional feats to be more powerful than normal feats available at first level, in order to encourage characters to belong. They put limits on how these feats can be spent. It's my position that these don't cost any more than a normal feat, and thus shouldn't be any more potent. It's theirs that they can be more potent because they help reinforce the character's ties to the world, and that's a Good Thing. IT's yours that....what, they aren't more powerful after all?

 

[Felon]

Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles.

Whoa. Hang on there, Midge. Dragon is 100% official D&D material, and in fact the artices are for the most part written by professional game designers.

At any rate, don't beat your head against the wall on this arguement. It has been established that the regional feats provide quantifiably superior benefits to standards feats at no cost, and the only real rebuttal that can be provided is "I think it's OK". If they're simply going to insist it's not a big deal, so be it. I've said my piece.

But for the record, folks, don't dwell on the martial proficiency feat, as there are other even more unbalanced examples, such as the new, improved Luck of Heroes (+1 on all saves and +1 to AC).

Ever since the Book of Exalted Deeds came out, I've been concerned that the power-scaling 2e trend is starting to emerge again. With these feats and PrC's like the Hammer of Moradin, my concerns are not being allayed. But ah well, catering to powermunchkins isn't that a big deal, right? OK, now I've said my piece. :\

 

[Swiftbrook]

Um, you do realize that there's a two-part article in Dragon (part 2 in next month's issue) that gives regional feats for the Greyhawk campaign, right?

Well, if Dragon were the PHB, I'd give this to you, but Dragon is basically a bunch of fan articles.

You do know that the Dragon article with new feats for Greyhawk was written by Erik Mona, author of Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, Editor-in-Chief of Dungeon Magazine. Ya, he's just a fan.

-Swiftbrook