More feats, fewer choices

[Jack Colby]

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

Feats have always placed constraints. By forcing players to choose which things they can do, you limit anyone without the feat from trying it. 3E introduced this concept to D&D, not 4E.

With regards to 4E though, when I make a character the feats seem almost pointless now. The powers are where it's at. They could have dropped feats entirely and the game would still work and be fun.

 

[Incenjucar]

The natural result of having a bazillion more feat slots is needing a bazillion more feats to fill those slots with.

They just weren't going to go and make the 4E PHB the size of the 2e Monstrous Manual.

4E has more required choice slots than any other version of the game thus far. This actually makes splats much more valuable because you will be able to use a larger portion of them.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

All this problem means practically, is that all characters probably want to have 3 stats at decent levels (depending on class), and maybe one more at 13 or more. It's a pretty easy adjustment to make, just pretend that a stat of 13 in 4.0 is equivalent to 10-11 in 3.5, maybe? It kind of goes along with the new bar that's been set for what constitutes a 1st level, "heroic" character.

I think once people are used to the system, it'll boil down to "I might want some athletic-type feats, better make sure my CON is at least 13." It requires a little planning ahead, but not that much effort.

 

[frankthedm]

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

Cast, yeah, but most effects will be shrugged off 55% of the time at best. Getting that down to 45% IS a huge difference in the target rich 4E environment.

Making feats require a player not to play "Eights and Eighteens" with point buy is a fabulous Idea

 

[ProfessorCirno]

All this problem means practically, is that all characters probably want to have 3 stats at decent levels (depending on class), and maybe one more at 13 or more. It's a pretty easy adjustment to make, just pretend that a stat of 13 in 4.0 is equivalent to 10-11 in 3.5, maybe? It kind of goes along with the new bar that's been set for what constitutes a 1st level, "heroic" character.

I think once people are used to the system, it'll boil down to "I might want some athletic-type feats, better make sure my CON is at least 13." It requires a little planning ahead, but not that much effort.

The issue is, traditionally - and yes, in the 4e book as well - you roll your stats before just about everything else. If you actually follow the books advice as a new player, you're suddenly going to find yourself up a creek without a paddle when it turns out you can't get the feats you want because your wizard didn't have a bonus to charisma.

The fact is, you can't punish or discourage min/maxing. It literally cannot be done - they will always find a loophole. But the more you push against them, the more you inavertedly hurt the NON-min/maxing characters who just want an ornery wizard.

Likewise, you can't push well rounded characters, because not everyone wants to be one. In fact, I'd wager most people don't want to be the 14-in-every-stat jack of all trades. I'll go on to wager that most people, when they make a wizard, want to be the smartest damn wizard there is. It's not even a min/max issue; it's a character archtype issue. Wizards are smart, fighters are strong, clerics are wise. But saying to a wizard "No, you have to take some points out of your smartness to be a charismatic person" doesn't hurt the min maxer, who goes "Ok, 13 in charisma then, because that's how I become powerful." It does hurt the player who goes "What? But I'm not charismatic. And a haughty elven wizard. That's what wizards are!"

Over all, I think it's an iffy move, though not neccisarily a bad one. However, it IS offsetting to new players, and isn't that precisely who this edition is trying to bring in?

 

[SableWyvern]

It does hurt the player who goes "What? But I'm not charismatic. And a haughty elven wizard. That's what wizards are!"

IMO, the solution to this issue is to start treating ability scores as the game artifacts that they are, instead of personality guides. Which is a concept that will be anathema to some people, but works for me.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

IMO, the solution to this issue is to start treating ability scores as the game artifacts that they are, instead of personality guides. Which is a concept that will be anathema to some people, but works for me.

So why even make a character?

Honestly, the solution should not be "Ok, just pretend it doesn't describe your character." These are your basic statistics - they're literally supposed to be the EXACT THING that describes your character.

 

[Blackeagle]

"No, you have to take some points out of your smartness to be a charismatic person"

But the thing is you don't have to. None of the feats I've seen so far are good enough that I would consider them must haves. Going from 55% of your targets saving to 45% of your targets saving is good, but so is getting your primary stat to 18 or bumping your secondary stat to 16 (one or the other of which you're probably giving up to take this feat). This only becomes a problem if the feat you need the stat for makes you a lot better than whatever else you could have spent those stat points on.

 

[VannATLC]

Low Charisma does not, for the record, equal 'ornery'

It equals indistinct, with no force of personality.

A haughty, arrogant SOB wizard is going to have quite a solid force of personality. But not necessarily a NICE one.

Where's that guy in the corner who never really speaks may be the nicest guy in the world.. but nobody would know.

People whose personalities stand out? They have high charisma. They don't need to be gorgeous, they don't need to be nice. They just need to be noticeable.

Cha 13 is quite suitable.

I happen to also intensely dislike the idea of treating abilities as game artifacts. ProfCirno is quite right, in that.

There is also no issue qualifying for any feats, that I've seen, if you stop attempting 18s in your primaries.

 

[SableWyvern]

So why even make a character?

Because without a character you can't play the game?

Honestly, the solution should not be "Ok, just pretend it doesn't describe your character."

Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that it's an unacceptable solution.

These are your basic statistics - they're literally supposed to be the EXACT THING that describes your character.

Note the part where I admit that many people won't be happy with my personal solution.

I intend to play 4E such that mechanics help adjudicate on the success or failure of character actions, and help guide the player in judging what his character is capable of doing successfully.. That, however, is entirely seperate to mechanics adjudicating on or informing the character's personality -- except where the player chooses that they do.

Edit:

As an example -- there's a character in the Malazan series who is an incredibly potent mage, but who also happens to be something of a simpleton. If I had a player that wanted to build a Wizard inspired by that character, we could spend ages agonising over what Int score to give him. Or, we could just say, "Give him high Int, and play him as a simpleton." An Int of 20 does not in any way impede your ability to play a character one way or another, unless you decide it must.