More feats, fewer choices

[Andor]

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.

Depends who you're selling to. Try and hardsell me something and I'll walk right out of the store. I bought a lot of 3e supplements, because I liked having more options. Being told they are going to make me buy the books in order to not suck... discourages me from dropping cent 1. I've already pre-ordered 4e, and I'm not going to cancel, because I want to be able to truely evaluate 4e. But buying the next lot of books? We'll see.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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

Really, I think it's the opposite. You now have to put your points into some otherwise seemingly useless stats to get the highest bonus. That seems right down min-max alley.

Someone who wants to make the classical intelligent and unapprochable wizard is now penalized for it. It's the min/maxers that'll pick up on "Ok, I need a 13 in charisma to make my character," while those who aren't min-maxing will be going "Why does my haughty mage need charisma to cast spells?"

 

[Blackeagle]

And I for one am happy because of it.

You're name says different Mr. Dump Stat.

 

[Blackeagle]

"Why does my haughty mage need charisma to cast spells?"

Huh? A wizard can cast spells perfectly well without taking that particular feat.

 

[StarFyre]

yes

the only things I do not like in 4E are the relative sameness/boringness of all the classes and the feats.

Hence 90% of the house rules we use, will be around some of the classes, and feats.

Sanjay

 

[small pumpkin man]

Really, I think it's the opposite. You now have to put your points into some otherwise seemingly useless stats to get the highest bonus. That seems right down min-max alley.

Someone who wants to make the classical intelligent and unapprochable wizard is now penalized for it. It's the min/maxers that'll pick up on "Ok, I need a 13 in charisma to make my character," while those who aren't min-maxing will be going "Why does my haughty mage need charisma to cast spells?"

Exactly. The other thread is complaining about the fact that you have to read the feat list and chose your stats from that as oposed to just take whatever stats feel appropriate, thus punishing people who don't min-max their stats. It's actually very annoying.

 

[Kzach]

Depends who you're selling to. Try and hardsell me something and I'll walk right out of the store. I bought a lot of 3e supplements, because I liked having more options. Being told they are going to make me buy the books in order to not suck... discourages me from dropping cent 1. I've already pre-ordered 4e, and I'm not going to cancel, because I want to be able to truely evaluate 4e. But buying the next lot of books? We'll see.

Ah, but it's NOT a hard sell.

You do not have to buy extra books to make a completely kickass character. But since your options are limited in a system that promises lots of options, when those options are expanded then naturally you want to have those extra options.

It's hard for me to put into words. In 3.x it was a hard sell, in 4e it's a soft sell. In fact, in 3.x they even went so far as to say that rules presented in splatbooks override the core books because they were more recent. So splatbooks became hard sells, pushed on you to get the new rules. 3.5 was practically an in your face sell.

Whereas 4e it's an enticement. And because the system inherently promotes supplements as options rather than necessities, it's a soft-sell. Having said that, you're far more likely to want an option than a necessity because it's a conclusion you come to rather than something forced down your throat.

Of course, those who REALISE that the system is designed in this manner view it as a hard sell because now they've become inherently hostile to the concept of the soft-sell.

Have a look at it from this perspective. How many feats are there in the 3.5 PHB as compared to the 4e PHB? You can hardly say you're being ripped off since there are MORE feats in 4e than there are in 3.5.

How many powers are there in 3.5 PHB than there are in 4e? Again, you can't say you're being ripped off 'cause you're not, you're getting good value. You've been given a plethora of options and feats and powers, all of which fills an entire book, just like any edition did previously.

It's just that the design fills so much space that it pushes out other things, like bards and barbarians and druids

The same with the monster manual. I *love* that there are multiple options for each monster. I think it's fantastic. But doing so takes up space so there are less monsters over all and fluff suffers. So naturally there will be an MMII. You can hardly blame them, it's not like they didn't fill an entire MM with monsters. It's not like you were ripped off. You got a great resource!

In 3.x they had to keep inventing new monster after new monster to fill books and make sales. And quite frankly, I was over that pretty fast. There are only so many sea-men or elves or zombies that I can tolerate. But when they bring out the MMII in 4e, well, I already want it 'cause it'll have all the monsters missing from MMI, and it'll be great value 'cause it'll be stuffed with monster variants!

Like I said though, I'm not very good at putting it into words.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Exactly. The other thread is complaining about the fact that you have to read the feat list and chose your stats from that as oposed to just take whatever stats feel appropriate, thus punishing people who don't min-max their stats. It's actually very annoying.

Indeed. Look at the minutiae-based micromanaging (and eliminating some of the stat choices I wanted to make for RP reasons) that people in the other thread suggest I apply to my character to meet more feat prereqs. You have to min/max like crazy if you want to meet a sufficient number of feat prereqs to have interesting options for some of the classes.

Martial classes are usually fine, though.

 

[Blackeagle]

Exactly. The other thread is complaining about the fact that you have to read the feat list and chose your stats from that as oposed to just take whatever stats feel appropriate, thus punishing people who don't min-max their stats. It's actually very annoying.

So you're saying that encouraging a well rounded character is somehow encouraging minmaxing? That seems rather contradictory.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So you're saying that encouraging a well rounded character is somehow encouraging minmaxing? That seems rather contradictory.

I think your disconnect comes via your definition of Min/Maxing.

I (and probably smallpumpkinman too) define it as choosing, in minutia, to build a character with the non-key abilities exactly the lowest they can be to get the maximum number of benefits without paying much for it, then pour everything else into the key abilities (either all at once for a one-trick-pony or in several ways to get extreme versatility).

In that sense, choosing 8 in a stat because you want to roleplay your character having a notable weakness in that ability score is less min/maxing than grabbing 13 in that stat because you need it to get the prime feats. Going into character build with the list of feats open and selecting your stats (and planning the raises) exactly so you can qualify for feats all the way through your career definitely seems like min/maxing to me.