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

[Cam Banks]

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.

The point here is that if you don't take it at 1st level, you don't ever take it. If you don't take Point Blank Shot or Improved Initiative at 1st level, or anything else for that matter, you can usually take it later. Regional feats are not only limited to certain backgrounds but if you don't pick them up first thing, that's it.

It may not sound like a balancing factor to you, but I can buy their reasoning.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Spatula]

Not so. This got a sidebar for why they deliberately changed regional feats to make them better than normal feats. The design philosophy is that since regional feats require the character to be grounded in the campaign world (essentially being a strong encouragement for role-playing) that they should reward the character more.

So we're back to balancing mechancal bonuses with role-playing. Yay.

It sounds like they need to bring back the whole core of the 3.0 design team.

 

[Spatula]

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).

Feh. That looks like the equivalent of 2.5 feats. Is the AC bonus typed? Does it only apply in limited circumstances like Dodge?

 

[reiella]

Feh. That looks like the equivalent of 2.5 feats. Is the AC bonus typed? Does it only apply in limited circumstances like Dodge?

Negative. It's a flat +1 luck bonus on all saving throws and a +1 luck bonus to Armor Class.

While I suppose it isn't too bad later on, if you happen to be running a Psionic Campaign, and your players all wear Skins of the Hero....

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I don't have the FRCS. (I thought it was too expensive, but I have still been considering buying it.) So, do I now have to buy TWO books if I want up-to-date basic information on the Realms??

It sounds like FRCS has been out-moded, but it is still necessary because the new book doesn't give you everything that the first one had.

Frustrating!

 

[reiella]

I don't have the FRCS. (I thought it was too expensive, but I have still been considering buying it.) So, do I now have to buy TWO books if I want up-to-date basic information on the Realms??

It sounds like FRCS has been out-moded, but it is still necessary because the new book doesn't give you everything that the first one had.

Frustrating!

The FRCS gives you alot more campaign information. The FRPG works nicely as a "Quick Intro" type book, however. The FRCS is where you'll find the god lists, region info, and plot hook ideas.

 

[dreaded_beast]

But ah well, catering to powermunchkins isn't that a big deal, right?

No offense to you Felon (and if I do offend you I apologize), but statements like this, in my opinion, are examples of the "elite" mentality that I find to be a very arrogant attitude in some gamers.

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.

In my opinion, DnD has always been about options. In regards to the "martial weapons" regional feat, in my opinion, if you don't like it, then don't use it or just tweak it to be more "balanced" for your campaign. What I believe is that it all comes down to groups (players and DM). For some groups this feat will not be a problem and for others it will be too powerful. It is up to the group to decide.

However, I think I have read from various sources (but take this with a grain of salt because I am just drawing from a general memory and can't really be specific without taking time to research) that it was generally acceptable practice to make some feats a little bit more powerful than others. I think this may have even been said about certain feats in the PHB.

Anyway, sorry for the rant and for going off-topic from the thread.

For what it's worth, I plan to pick-up a copy of the PGtF. Call me a FR-fan, heh.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Can we rename this thread "Complaints of Regional Feats vs. Standard Feats"? Outside of some very basic information and some balance issues that people who don't even own the book have, does anyone else have anything to say about the material in the book? Any cool monk PrCs? How about bards? How many variants of the harper do we get this time?

Since it is the Player's Guide, I imagine that there's not much in the form of monsters, templates and magic items but I've seen at least a mention of magic items or item properties. Any word on those?

 

[jasamcarl]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[jasamcarl]

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. :\

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.