Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 549424" data-attributes="member: 3146">You obviously have a fairly clear idea of what a power gamer is and a set way of dealing with it. Fair enough.From the other side of the gaming table, however, it doesn't seem at all clear what would be power gaming and what wouldn't. Some people think that any character with more than one class is power-gaming. I've seen people on this board who think that any character with a prestige class is obviously played by some kind of worthless power-gamer scum. Heck, I've even seen some people who seem to believe that any character whose feats, skills, and class abilities enable them to be effective in combat (for instance a fighter with a 16 strength, weapon focus, power attack, and cleave) is power-gaming. On the other hand, I've also played with people at conventions who thought that my 36 point buy Paladin 3/Cleric 3/Templar 3 with his cloak of charisma, adamantine fullplate of command, and vest of resistance was par for the course--not power gaming at all. Obviously, there are different definitions of power gaming at work in different games. And it's unclear where advantageous uses of synergies work into that formula too. Is it power gaming for a fighter/wizard with Expert Tactician to cast Blink? How about a Wizard/Rogue? Or is it power gaming for a fighter/wizard to cast true strike and then power attack? I don't think so although they're sometimes smart moves. Some people might think otherwise though.With these feats (calling them heroic bothers me somewhat--it's as if a character without these super powers is incapable of heroism) however, a character is giving up something that they would use all the time. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Point Blank Shot, Combat Reflexes or something else. The only kind of a character who might--and still, it's only a possibility--be able to take such a feat at negligable cost is a human fighter (and it would still interfere with some things the "I wanna be a  weapon master" feat progression for instance). For an half-orc barbarian, they wouldn't have any other feats until third level. So, assuming that characters with "heroic" feats aren't supposed to be effectively characters with no feats, they have to be able to expect to use them fairly regularly. (The inclusion of uses/day formulas in the feat seems to indicate that this is a reasonable expectation).According to you, however, these feats are different because characters aren't supposed to use them in a manner advantageous to them. It's a no-no to toss a second lightning bolt (or presumably a magic missile) to drop the last bad guy threatening you and your wounded companions before he finishes an unconscious character or runs off to sound the alarm--even if you collapse to the ground exhausted by the effort afterwards. So, is it also a no-no to use it in even more obviously advantageous cases? "'A balor? Die foul fiend!' Driven by rage at this blight on the face of the earth, my paladin takes a heroic action to cast holy sword on his lance then spurs his warhorse forward into a spirited charge at the fiend (smiting evil and power attacking for 10 too)." A character gets an awful lot more milage out of potentially dropping the Balor on turn 1 before it uses Destruction on the Wizard than dropping that last goblin.That's the primary problem I see with these feats. The cases where the heroic action could really pay off and be worth the feat expended for it, the cases where a skilled powergamer (a different breed of powergamer than the one which wastes a heroic action on a goblin that would probably only do 1d6 points of damage if it did any at all) would use the ability, and the cases where heroic action is really called for in character (generally tough battles--although if I had this feat and we were averaging one battle per campaign day, I'd probably either be frustrated because I had a feat that I was rarely allowed to use or would use it even in non-climactic battles when it might be helpful) are all the same things. Because of that, I would be very leery about playing with any DM who told me "heroic feat x is available but don't use it to power-game."Come to think of it, it seems like that's the same problem with allowing overcasting. If it were allowed, smart players wouldn't use it unless the risk was justified (ie unless it were a big battle or they were in trouble) and then (if it were worth doing at all) it would turn the tide of the battle. (If my 5th level PC can overcast and come up with a disintegrate, you better bet he'll try it when he's up against a 10th level half-fiend sorceror (and if he can take heroic action too, he'll do it twice (unless the first one works) as soon as he figures out that's what he's up against)--after all, if he can't do it then, why have the ability at all?)</blockquote>

Verification