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

[dreaded_beast]

Can we rename this thread "Complaints of Regional Feats vs. Standard Feats"?

Heh, yeah.

I'm interested in hearing about the "history" updates in this book.

Have they incorporated the events from the various novels, such as the 1,000 Orcs book with Drizzt in it?

I believe that one of the greatest strengths of FR is the history and I looking forward to hear about the current events in FR. Anything in there that could be considered a Realms-Shattering-Event?

 

[foxylady]

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.

"cast all first level spells" is a much better feat than "use all martial weapons".

How about a more powerful 18th level feat, or 12th level feat?

How about it? A feat can be more powerful than the norm if you have to be higher level to get it, simply because it's no longer unbalanced at the level you get it. I happen to like feat scaling, especially for fighters, whose feats rapidly lose oomph at high levels. The same issues shows up in LA: light 1/day as an SLA might be worth +1 LA at first level, but by the time you're tenth level it's surely worth +0 LA.

 

[reiella]

Heh, yeah.

I'm interested in hearing about the "history" updates in this book.

Have they incorporated the events from the various novels, such as the 1,000 Orcs book with Drizzt in it?

I believe that one of the greatest strengths of FR is the history and I looking forward to hear about the current events in FR. Anything in there that could be considered a Realms-Shattering-Event?

Return of the Archwizards and War of the Spider Queen metaplot is accounted.

The timeline updates to Kythorn 1,1373 DR (Year of the Rogue Dragons).

[ Add ]
No clue if that includes 1000 orcs or not, I haven't read the novels.

 

[I'm A Banana]

U

Use the feats and have fun with 'em. I get their reasoning, and I can accept it, it's just a kind of annoying example of FR simply being 'better' than the core rules......which is something I thought was mostly in the past....so it's a bit of a booo........

Wow. If you honestly can't see why the +2/+2 s and martial weapon proficiencies are weak, then i fear pressing this point, because I doubt you will get it, but oh well....SUCH FEATS HAVE ALMOST NO IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF A CHARACTER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR PARTY'S EXPECTED DAMAGE PER ROUND OR TO HELP THEM AVOID SUCH DAMAGE. There. You see, the thing is, the only 'balance' in this game is related to combat (and rightfully so). A wizard with martial weapons proficiency who actually trys to use it will in almost all cases weaken its party, because a lack of hps, armor proficiency, bab, bonus feats or combat enhancing class abilities, would make it a poor fighter regardless of whether or not it could wield a polearm or longsword. And the OPPURTUNITY COST of not using its spells only seals the deal.

Well, if that's the only measure, why not just give everyone except those with good hp and BAB proficiency in every weapon, since it's just going to weaken the party anyway if they actually use those powers?

So, regardless of how you interpret the designer's use of the term 'better' or their intentions in general, many of the feats are not unbalanced relative to something like power attack. If anything, unlike crap skill feats, most players will actualy see them as balanced choices as oppossed to their choices of the first link in the chain. The fact that they can only be taken at first level means that they impose this time cost, pushing the character's utility curve up to higher levels.

No, they don't, because a character could take, say, Scribe Scroll at first level and have the exact same effect regardless of the time scale. The cost of EVERY feat is 'you can't get other feats.' Simply dictating a level at which they are to be chosen doesn't increase the COST, it just puts limits on the feat's versatility.

You have an notion of balance which in some cases is too broad and others too narrow. I especially love the inability to distinguish between 'flavor' feats and those that are actually relevant. So my conclusion is that for the most party on the actual merits as oppossed to your interpretation of designers intent, these feats are not particularly special..nope. And if what the designers meant by more powerful was in respect to +2/+2s and the like (i.e. feats not used as prereqs), then this is both perfectly in keeping with what they stated AND its not unbalancing.

Well, I look at it this way. I"m a first level wizard from place who wants to wield a longsword. I can take one of two feats, one of which is Martial Weapon Proficiency, and one of which is the regional feat that gives me all Martial Weapons.......hmmmmmm..............

Or, I'm a first level anything from place who wants to boost my saves. I can take one of two feats, either a +2 save feat, or +1 all saves and AC feat.......hm..............

Or even, I'm a first level anything who wants to be quick....I can take one of two feats, Improved Initiative, or a regional feat that gives me +1 to all saves and AC........well, I can always take Improved Init. later......hmmm......

See, this "regional feats are more powerful" thing makes players want to choose them, which links them to the world. Helpful. But the benefit to Whirlwind Attack is the same if I get it now, or if I get it in three levels because of my regional feat....that benefit doesn't significantly decrease at higher levels. The regional feats, baring exceptional circumstances, are 'no brainer' feats....you'd be a fool NOT to take it. They seem to have been designed specifically that way.....it makes someone from one region significantly different from someone from another, and makes sure that difference is reflected in the party.

But if I'm a wizard from place who wants to wield a longsword, what would ever be my incentive to pick up Martial Weapon Proficiency? I would say that any one feat that makes any other feats seem like bad choices in the circumstances in which they would be chosen is 'overpowered.' The +2/+2 feats aren't overpowered in this respect (+10% on two different rolls is certainly a significant advantage when you use those rolls a lot), Improved Initiative isn't overpowered in this respect (+20% to one roll is a big bonus, if you want to avoid being flat-footed), Skill Focus isn't overpowered in this respect (+15% to one roll is a bit weak, but not enough to make it not worthwhile).

The regional feats in the book shouldn't stand up against cleave or improved trip any more than they have to stand up to whirlwind attack....they should have to stand up to feats without prerequisites, which they are obviously more powerful than.

If that's cool with you, go, have fun. But I think that's bad design-fu.

 

[Nightfall]

I just want to know WHY they demoted Orcus. He deserves godhood as much as that wimpy Finder. Moreso.

 

[reiella]

See, this "regional feats are more powerful" thing makes players want to choose them, which links them to the world. Helpful. But the benefit to Whirlwind Attack is the same if I get it now, or if I get it in three levels because of my regional feat....that benefit doesn't significantly decrease at higher levels. The regional feats, baring exceptional circumstances, are 'no brainer' feats....you'd be a fool NOT to take it. They seem to have been designed specifically that way.....it makes someone from one region significantly different from someone from another, and makes sure that difference is reflected in the party.

Well, let's see. After looking over the regional feats, at least a good third can be seen as Reasonable to the Baseline (Non-Regional) feats. Stuff like Axethrower just is a reverse engineered Weapon Finesse.

Stuff like Mercantile Background grates on my nerves though... The 300 bonus starting gp is a nice touch, but the boon to sell value kinda replaces a skill check for negotiation.

The worst one I've seen so far, is Otherwordly... No SINGLE FEAT should change your base type. That's a template thing IMO.

 

[dreaded_beast]

I just want to know WHY they demoted Orcus. He deserves godhood as much as that wimpy Finder. Moreso.

Orcus has been demoted?

So Orcus has been included in the FR mythos?

(Or has he always been a part of it and I just didn't know it?)

 

[reiella]

Orcus has been demoted?

So Orcus has been included in the FR mythos?

(Or has he always been a part of it and I just didn't know it?)

He was in 2nd Edition, during the time period of the Universal Mythos systems.

The Abyss is home to no deities, but demon princes make their homes there.

However, from the text for the Nine Hells, you can extrapolate the Demon Princes to rival minor deities in terms of power. Regardless it is a step down from his position in 2e mythos (particularly in the Armageddeon period of 2e).

 

[JoeGKushner]

No seriously, can we get another thread for all the regional feat arguements.

Some people seem to be forgetting that other settings have them too.

Greyhawk? Yup.

Kara-Tur? Yup.

Legend of the 5 Rings? Yup.

Let's focus on the other aspects of the book. I am interested that some more novels have been updated even as I cringe as I haven't read a Forgotten Realms book in a while.

 

[Felon]

It's as if being a "powermunchkin" is a "bad" thing. I've always held the opinion that there is no right-way or wrong-way to play DnD. Just because someone doesn't like a particular playing-style doesn't mean that their playing-style is any better and vice-versa.

Don't get me wrong; I've designed as many "smackdown" characters as the next guy. But as you say, the game is about options. If these regional feats patently outclass other feats, then that makes some choices flat-out better than others. That limits options and leads to more homogenous character designs. This is why I say it is a big deal when designers start getting in that mode where the content of each new product is just a little more powerful than the content in previous products. A variety of choices should be available.

Dude, are you going for a plea of willfull ignorance? If you think most of the regional feats in the book are better than Cleave or Improved Trip, than you are off your rocker.

All I can infer from your posts is that you're of that school of thought that any feat that makes for a more offense-oriented character (like Cleave or Improved Trip) is inherently better than a defensive feat (like Luck of Heroes or Blooded), which in turn is inherently better than a feat that boosts skills. Perhaps you buy into that belief strongly enough that you regard it as a tautology, which is you don't bother to support it beyond "dude, you're off your rocker". The truth is, it's just one subjective outlook on how to play the game, albeit a very popular one.

Maybe in your campaign skill enhancing feats don't amount to much--I've certainly played in campaigns where they didn't--but I've also been in campaigns where Cleave was considered nigh-useless (because all anyone seems to fight are individual powerhouse monsters) and Improved Trip is unheard of (because the powerhouse monsters are too hard to trip). And within that subset of campaigns, there were some where characters constantly had to make saving throws and skill checks and got plenty of milieage out of save-and-skilll-enhancing feats.