More feats, fewer choices

[phil500]

In 4E, characters get many more feats than in earlier editions. It seems the constraint isnt how many feats you get, but whether or not you qualify for those feats.

I agree that some feats, like the "improved critical" (3.5 term) or "[weapon category] mastery" ones should be somewhat exclusive, but some feats requirements just seem silly. To be more precise: those requirements punish min/maxing. For example, why do wizards need a charisma of 13 to take "spell focus" (-2 to all saves). That makes no sense fluff-wise.

A 10 second glance at the PHB yielded another: fast runner, +2 to run, requires 13 con. That one makes sense, but who gives a damn? In 3.5, if my players wanted to spend a feat to do that, I would let them have it. But now that they have so many feats to spend, maybe I would have to rethink that decision. Oh wait, I dont- the PHB did it for me.

Feats were once precious, and the key to giving a player the ability to have their character do special thing. Now it feels like a player needs to decide between using his even more limited stat points as he wants to, or using them in a way that lets him unlock feats he wants to use.

Whereas feats once gave options, I feel like now they place constraints.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmm... that's an interesting take. There's another thread about constrained feat choices, too. Maybe part of the idea was to get away from 'dump stats' - there had certainly been complaints about charisma as a dump stats all through 3E, for instance. It gives more rounded characters more choices for feats, more focused ones fewer choices. Doesn't seem too unreasonable on the surface.

Cha for a penalty to save does make some sense, BTW. Cha includes projecting your force of personality or will.

 

[Makaze]

those requirements punish min/maxing

I think you answered at least part of your own question.

 

[GorTeX]

To be more precise: those requirements punish min/maxing.

Hmm. many, many people complain bout min/maxing of PC's..perhaps this had an influence somewhere.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I think you answered at least part of your own question.

And I for one am happy because of it.

 

[Rechan]

So then they'll just min/max a tiny bit less so they qualify for the feats.

After all, every 4 levels you get a +1 to two stats. Spread the secondary +1 around. Unless your class depends heavily on a secondary stat (Wizard doesn't, for instance), you're gold. Also, taking points away from Str to spread around, etc.

 

[Makaze]

So then they'll just min/max a tiny bit less so they qualify for the feats.

True, you can never stop min/maxing without removing all meaningful choices. Every time you throw up an impediment it simply becomes part of the system that's being min/maxed.

 

[Kzach]

It's all part of the plan.

I'm a fan of 4e however I do believe they've been very, very clever about it's design.

In-built into the system is the need to purchase more books for more options.

In 3.x there wasn't any real incentive to buy splatbooks. There may have been one class or one feat that you liked, but you didn't need the book for that.

But in 4e there is the POTENTIAL for far greater variety and choice. The PHB is like whetting the appetite. Not only that, but the design of it fills space just lovely, justifying the need to put out more books: we didn't have the space last time

This isn't cynicism or even criticism by the way. I just think it's exceedingly clever design. I like the system so I've already sold to myself the concept of buying more books. Brilliant marketing, that.

 

[Rystil Arden]

In 4E, characters get many more feats than in earlier editions. It seems the constraint isnt how many feats you get, but whether or not you qualify for those feats.

I agree that some feats, like the "improved critical" (3.5 term) or "[weapon category] mastery" ones should be somewhat exclusive, but some feats requirements just seem silly. To be more precise: those requirements punish min/maxing. For example, why do wizards need a charisma of 13 to take "spell focus" (-2 to all saves). That makes no sense fluff-wise.

A 10 second glance at the PHB yielded another: fast runner, +2 to run, requires 13 con. That one makes sense, but who gives a damn? In 3.5, if my players wanted to spend a feat to do that, I would let them have it. But now that they have so many feats to spend, maybe I would have to rethink that decision. Oh wait, I dont- the PHB did it for me.

Feats were once precious, and the key to giving a player the ability to have their character do special thing. Now it feels like a player needs to decide between using his even more limited stat points as he wants to, or using them in a way that lets him unlock feats he wants to use.

Whereas feats once gave options, I feel like now they place constraints.

Check this thread for some interesting in-depth discussion on just this issue.

 

[Anax]

To be more precise: those requirements punish min/maxing.

*gasp* OH the HUMANITY!

For example, why do wizards need a charisma of 13 to take "spell focus" (-2 to all saves). That makes no sense fluff-wise.

Sure it does. Charisma is, among other things, force of will. It makes perfect (fluffy) sense that by careful training, you could channel your above average force of will into making effects more difficult to shrug off.