New Design & Development: Feats

[jasin]

I just don't see how a cleric 18/Ftr 2 has sacrificed any measurable spell power in return for +2 BAB and two bonus feats.

He sacrificed two miracles, one greater spell immunity and one blasphemy each day. That, for two feats, 2 hp and martial weapons. He didn't get +2 BAB; a Clr18/Ftr2 is BAB +15, just like Clr20. At another level, there might be BAB gain (+1 at the most, and probably made irrelevant by divine power) but there will be also an even more significant loss in spell power: 0 miracles vs. 2 miracles is even worse than 2 miracles vs. 4 miracles.

The sacrifice is huge.

 

[DM_Blake]

Er, how so?

Even if the name was "Exclude Area", until you play with it a few times, you still will have to go to the PHB to see what the Feat actually does.

Exclude Area tells me nothing just like Power Attack tells me nothing intrinsically. Really, is there ANY feat that you can decipher how it works without reading the text?

I dont' think anyone is claiming you can "decipher" a feat you've never seen before just from the name.

My dislike of Golden Wyvern Adept is that it doesn't tell me anything about what it does. Does this feat help the adept brew potions? Improve his Teleport range? Let him summon more monsters (wyverns)? No idea.

Once this feat is on a list with over a thousand other feats with equally meaningless names, nobody is going to remember what all of them do.

I know in 3.5e I have over 1200 feats on my feat list. I can look at the name of almost all of those feats and know what they do.

I could possibly forget the exact mechanics of Power Attack (well, not likely, but I'll allow for the possibility) but at least when I look at it on some monster's stat block, I will know it must do something to add power to his attack. Maybe the players negotiate with thsi monster (or NPC) and there never is any combat. Which means that if I forgot what Power Attack does, I didn't have to delay the game to look it up because it never applied to the encounter.

But if that NPC had a feat called Golden Wyvern Adept and we were negotiating with him, I would probably have to look that up to make sure it didn't improve his ability in negotiation type encounters.

Which means that for cryptically named feats, there is more time spent at the gaming table pawing through reference books than for obviously named feats.

It's not the "golden wyvern" that is annoying. It's the "adept" that annoys me. That part, at least, should be changed to represent the feat.

 

[jasin]

I don't know for sure, but I can think of a few reasons.

They make sense, but I still think the feat is weird in the context provided by the comment about Spring Attack.

 

[The Little Raven]

My dislike of Golden Wyvern Adept is that it doesn't tell me anything about what it does. Does this feat help the adept brew potions? Improve his Teleport range? Let him summon more monsters (wyverns)? No idea.

Giving anyone the name of something without context will cause confusion. However, it takes only a moment to get that context by reading the article about wizards and implements.

Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.

Now, since they're described as shaping and sculpting their spells, it's pretty clear what the feat would do (exactly what it does... allows them to shape spells in particular ways).

 

[Counterspin]

Plus, since I'd put money on there being a chain, or at least a cluster of golden wyvern feats, golden wyvern can function as a useful prefix which sorts all feats that involve shaping and sculpting spells in one easy to find location in the feat list (increase range, increase area, increase targets, exclude squares, etc.).

 

[Rechan]

Plus, since I'd put money on there being a chain, or at least a cluster of golden wyvern feats, golden wyvern can function as a useful prefix which sorts all feats that involve shaping and sculpting spells in one easy to find location in the feat list (increase range, increase area, increase targets, exclude squares, etc.).

This is my guess as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly.

Looked at in the extreme case it could be said that not only are they afraid we can't handle complicated rules and they need to simplify that for us poor confused strugglers, but we also just don't have the knack of this whole "imagination, roleplaying" thing, so they need to spoon feed us that as well.

Not _us_. New gamers. We don't need spoon-fed anymore. But that doesn't mean others couldn't benefit from it to give them a nice start, and then they can join ranks with us and do the cool stuff we already did in 3rd edition and leave Gold Wyvern or Emerald Frosts behind (or adapt, rename, throw away, twist, abuse or whatever else they come up with). But with a different, hopefully better foundation.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...

That's a noble intent, and I see why they're doing that - but I still have the feeling that they went a bit overboard with it.

Well, aside from that (rather minor) quibble, the article was great and crunchy - more of these kinds of articles, please!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Betote]

I'm also concerned about the "non-woodsey Dex Fighter" being a non-option. Unless the Rogue is now the Swashbuckler in all but name. But then, who's the assassin/spy? I'm also hoping you can be a non-priest Archer. I did not like how in AE you had to go all "mystic hawk warrior" to be a good archer, and I would not like the same for D&D.

We don't know if a ranger has to be a tree-hugger. It seems like class abilities are going to be more like special powers you can choose as your character gains levels, but without having (or being able) to take all of them.

I'd actually like it a lot if it were like that; something similar to True20 where classes/roles don't tell you what yo can do, but the array of different things from where you can choose the ones you will be able to do.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

1) Its true that you shouldn't have to go to a monastery to learn to punch someone.
2) Its not true that the fighter should be designed so that it can punch people just as well as the monk.

Classes have baggage. But so do fighting styles. If you want to play a character who doesn't wear armor, or at least doesn't wear much armor, who punches things as his primary attack technique, and who's reasonably skilled in terms of balance, coordination, and mobility, and I want to play a character who wears full plate, carries a shield, hits people with a big axe, and who occasionally punches people when he's in a bar and not wearing any of his gear, well, we probably need two different classes for that.

And thus the class glut of 3.5.

Really feats were a great counter to this issue. A class based system has its share of weaknesses (witness numerous classes and prcs to cover many concepts). Feats were a good patch to that. I'm saddened they appear to be largely lame now.