I am forseeing problems with feats

[Raloc]

Point is, you have absolutely no way of knowing if the DM will suddenly *start* ambushing you during your Paragon tier, or not. The feat is basically pointless unless you know ahead of time you'll be ambushed a fair amount of the time. And unless you have scads of action points, you probably wouldn't use one on this feat anyway, since anything that could take you out during a surprise round would do so that round regardless of whether or not one PC was active. Unless it's supposed to be assumed that all players will waste a feat on this, to give APs some use (since if this is actually considered a pretty decent benefit, then the regular uses of APs most probably are inconsequential).

Also, "you can use this sometimes" and "extra cost" are pretty much the same for this example. That feat is "you can use this sometimes FOR extra cost". What I mentioned was "you can use this for extra cost" (provided you have the lame feat). So there is no "vast difference" at all.

 

[Fifth Element]

Heck, take another.

 

[The Little Raven]

The feat is basically pointless unless you know ahead of time you'll be ambushed a fair amount of the time.

So, you approach the game believing you'll always make every Perception check and always see enemies before they see you? Or don't pay attention the first ten levels of play to see the kind of encounter-style your DM runs?

And unless you have scads of action points, you probably wouldn't use one on this feat anyway, since anything that could take you out during a surprise round would do so that round regardless of whether or not one PC was active.

That is completely untrue, as demonstrated by the examples given.

Also, "you can use this sometimes" and "extra cost" are pretty much the same for this example. That feat is "you can use this sometimes FOR extra cost". What I mentioned was "you can use this for extra cost" (provided you have the lame feat). So there is no "vast difference" at all.

No, your example was "you can take a basic action like attack if you give up part of your character progression, and risk losing a level," compared to "you can spend an Action Point on a special ability, because APs are given for exactly that purpose."

I can't believe you don't understand the VAST difference between those two things.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think the above posters were pretty clear. The feat is in the paragon tier. A player reacts to a DM who uses ambush encounters by taking it. A player whose DM does not use ambush encounters does not take it. The fact that it is part of the paragon tier suggests character evolution; my character learned to react against surprise attacks through his adventures. Of course if I take it in the paragon tier while my DM never ambushed my party for 10+ levels it may well prove to be useless. But why would I consider taking it in that case?

 

[Raloc]

*Shrug* I don't care either way. I was just pointing out what I feel to be a poor feat. To me, that reeks of a feat that in 3e would do something like "You may pay 50pp to gain a +1 circumstance check to Tumble when in the presence of both copier machines and office chairs."

 

[Raloc]

So, you approach the game believing you'll always make every Perception check and always see enemies before they see you? Or don't pay attention the first ten levels of play to see the kind of encounter-style your DM runs?



That is completely untrue, as demonstrated by the examples given.

What examples, exactly?

No, your example was "you can take a basic action like attack if you give up part of your character progression, and risk losing a level," compared to "you can spend an Action Point on a special ability, because APs are given for exactly that purpose."

I can't believe you don't understand the VAST difference between those two things.

Hyperbole, perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[The Little Raven]

*To me, that reeks of a feat that in 3e would do something like "You may pay 50pp to gain a +1 circumstance check to Tumble when in the presence of both copier machines and office chairs."

So, using a single generic point that are intended for all characters to use is exactly the same as a feat requiring a specific class (since pp are for psionic characters) and using more of that class's specific energy pool than any of it's special class abilities?

That's completely absurd.

 

[Raloc]

So, using a single generic point that are intended for all characters to use is exactly the same as a feat requiring a specific class (since pp are for psionic characters) and using more of that class's specific energy pool than any of it's special class abilities?

That's completely absurd.

PP = platinum pieces. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

 

[The Little Raven]

What examples, exactly?

As already posted by Merlin.

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?

There are plenty of reasons why acting in a surprise round is incredibly advantageous to any member of a group.

Hyperbole, perhaps you've heard of it?

You're going beyond simple exaggeration (I could sleep for a year... I could eat a horse... etc) into the realm of absurdity.

 

[The Little Raven]

PP = platinum pieces. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

Be more clear.

And less absurd.

Action Points = Points available to all characters, intended to activate certain innate capabilities (automatic stablization, for example) and purchase feats and powers (this feat, for example).

Currency = Points gained by characters in order to purchase goods or services, not activate their own character abilities.