I am forseeing problems with feats

[The Little Raven]

Anyone else think this feat is really lame?

No. We haven't seen what Action Points in 4e actually do, so judging a feat that uses APs for it's activation is a bit premature in my book.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

OT: Anyone else think this feat is really lame? If I were DMing, I'd probably say that using an action point to act on a surprise round should be a normal part of action points. Some might say that all characters would do this just because it's advantageous, but personally I'd merely give out less APs and allow them to be used for much more interesting things.

depends on how much action points you have per day/week/adventure/Level and how bad your perception is

If AP recharge daily, then this feat could actually save your life. Allowing it for everyone (in the case of non renewing APs) suprise won´t matter anymore...

 

[Evilhalfling]

Note : For the sake of this argument let's pretend that striving towards acquiring Whirlwind Attack wasn't a fool's errand.

maybe, but CE = good, dodge (HR to always on) = good, mobilty=okay, spring attack=good
you do get a decent fighter out of it My problem was that you had to start with int 13 and dx 13, which let out a lot of people, esp NPCs.

The chain is even more brutal for a paladin or swashbuckler.
only 1 PC and one Cohort ever got there IMC, and it was used perhaps three times. The prerequ feats got used all the fricken time.

I also never really liked the CE -> trip,disarm chain, why do these abilities need a high int again?

 

[Stogoe]

I'm glad they moved from that "let's trick new players into making bad choices" view.

So am I. My jaw stood agape when they admitted it - it all made so much sense once I read that. I guess I never really thought that making one set of options really crappy was a conscious design choice, instead of a blind spot or unconscious moral failing.

 

[Fifth Element]

OT: Anyone else think this feat is really lame? If I were DMing, I'd probably say that using an action point to act on a surprise round should be a normal part of action points. Some might say that all characters would do this just because it's advantageous, but personally I'd merely give out less APs and allow them to be used for much more interesting things.

No. But you can take a "judging a small detail of a system without knowing anything else about the system" point, if you'd like one.

 

[Raloc]

No. We haven't seen what Action Points in 4e actually do, so judging a feat that uses APs for it's activation is a bit premature in my book.

Well, it seems to me if they're going to require a feat to do something as relatively trivial as that, APs will likely be used for (other) very inane things. I find it extremely lame. I never liked the idea that APs were just there to "fix" a bad roll or two. Instead, I always wanted to use them to let players do things that the game wouldn't handle properly, such as clever strategy or problem solving solutions. That's just me though, I know many people like to play 100% RAW and any deviation is frowned upon....

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, it seems to me if they're going to require a feat to do something as relatively trivial as that, APs will likely be used for (other) very inane things.

How exactly is being able to act when noone else in your party is able to act trivial? And yeah, most things APs will be used for should be fairly trivial, since the heart of a character's coolness is in his class-specific abilities, not a generic trait like Action Points.

 

[Raloc]

How exactly is being able to act when noone else in your party is able to act trivial? And yeah, most things APs will be used for should be fairly trivial, since the heart of a character's coolness is in his class-specific abilities, not a generic trait like Action Points.

It's trivial because there's no guarantee you'll ever get to use it. It's completely dependent on how often the DM wants to spring encounters that leave the PCs surprised. If said DM doesn't, you just wasted a feat. Also, how is "you get to use this sometimes, maybe" at all non-trivial? That's like saying you can attack, if you have a feat for it and want to spend 200xp to do it.

Also, I think that using Action Points for basically pointless/no benefit things defeats their usefulness.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Well, it seems to me if they're going to require a feat to do something as relatively trivial as that...

If a Wizard can throw up a Wall of Fire to prevent the enemy from charging before the group is ready, is it trivial? If a Defender can interpose himself between the enemy and the squishy folk, is that trivial? If a Striker can disrupt the enemy mage's spell, is it trivial?

This depends a lot on the other elements of the system. I agree that it seems a bit lame now, but there are certainly ways the game could take shape that make it extremely useful.

 

[The Little Raven]

If said DM doesn't, you just wasted a feat.

If the DM has never ambushed you once during your entire Heroic tier, why would you take the feat? Just like if you never used a longsword, taking Weapon Focus (longsword) would be useless, too. It's not like Toughness or Dodge that tricks you into taking something that is relatively useless. It's a feat that is taken to address a common occurrence in games, since it can only be taken at 11th level or higher.

Also, how is "you get to use this sometimes, maybe" at all non-trivial? That's like saying you can attack, if you have a feat for it and want to spend 200xp to do it.

There's a vast difference between "you can use this sometimes" and "you have to pay extra costs to use this." I don't even see how you come up with this connection.