New Design & Development: Feats

[Glyfair]

Agreed. Shape Spell would have been a nice name.

I disagree. Serviceable? Yes. Nice? No.

I find it odd that so many have complained about the lack of flavor in D&D of late and how D&D had much more in names and such. Now that they move in that direction we get complaints about the flavor and requests for boring flavorless names.

 

[Odhanan]

Now THIS is what I call a Design & Development column.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Now THIS is what I call a Design & Development column.

QFT
This is what the columns up to now should have been like.

Brevity is good. I don't like the way they're taking feats overall or some of the things they're making class abilities . Then again I didn't like the entire class role design philosophy, so I didn't expect to. No skin off my nose anyway.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Golden Wyvern Adept is a bit of an odd man out in these four. Why is it a feat rather than a Wizard class ability? In contrast the other three feats are very generic. I could see any character wanting to take them.

Also, is First Reaction is the first time we've seen a use for an action point in 4e? A nice feat, but it could easily be in Eberron or Saga.

 

[Dragoon]

Well "Shape Spell" was just a suggestion, heck, I even like "Sculpt Spell" better actually. Fanciful feat names just don't work for me personally. Also why have some pedestrian named feats and others fanciful? Maybe it is the mixing of the two naming styles that is bothering me, but I do think the 4 feats presented are useful and well thought out.

Now if they used Golden Wyvern Adept as PrC name, now that would be a cool name.

 

[zoroaster100]

I like the feats and the news about feats and class abilities. So long as multiclassing is still viable, it should still allow for any number of character concepts, such as a fighter who can also spring attack (with some rogue levels). What pleases me most about this article is that it suggests WOTC is finally ready to start sharing some bits about mechanics, which is what I need to get me excited about 4th edition (since I'm not too happy about the flavor changes). I remain hopeful about improvement to the mechanics of the game.

 

[humble minion]

Have to agree on the names. Golden Wyvern Adept is meaningless and will only be annoying to run. How about when an NPC has a feat with this sort of overly-florid name? (Do NPCs have feats, anyway?) Presumably he'd have the feat name on his character sheet, and unless the GM has an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules he'll have to look it up before using it. And this problem will only get worse as supplements start coming out and the feat options pile up.

Surely something a little bit descriptive would be better? I can cope with the names not being completely prosaic, but a bit more thought being put into the names rather than just picking an adjective and a noun out a hat would have been nice. This one could have been called Islands In The Fire Technique, or something like that. This way the name actually means something. What do wyverns or gold have to do with shaping evocations anyway?

Also, does anyone else think the 'Adjective Noun' naming convention might be limited to higher-level powers and abilities? Both this and the legendary 'Dragons Tail Cut' would appear to be targeted mostly at fairly beefy characters. If this is the case, it makes the whole business a fair bit more palatable imho. A 5th-level fighter might have Weapon Focus and Defensive Expertise or something, and that seems reasonable, but when he's 25th it's a fair bit easier to see him having mastered Razor Hail Technique and Cut of the Nine Winds. Very Epic.

 

[Stogoe]

I find it odd that so many have complained about the lack of flavor in D&D of late and how D&D had much more in names and such. Now that they move in that direction we get complaints about the flavor and requests for boring flavorless names.

Well duh, the new names aren't the exact same as the old names. What did you expect when you go changing things for good reasons? Polite, considered arguments for and against?

I like the magic schools, and I hope only a Golden Wyvern wizard can take Golden Wyvern Adept as a feat. Current choices should affect later options.

I also think some of the 'straitjacket' hate comes from people who categorically despise multiclassing for whatever reason. My opinion is, classes are ability packages, and you should mix and match to fit your character concept. Also; remember the tenth level Warlord who multiclassed into wizard and yet didn't have any wizard levels, just wizard talents/powers. If you want Spring Attack on the fighter, you can multiclass into ranger and pick up the tree instead of other fighter options.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

I think that Wizard Traditions are not so important rules-wise: they look like Jedi Combat Styles in SW RPG. Probably it will be hard to give some of these "tradition feats" a plain flavor-less name because of the benefits they give. They give some "miscelaneous" bonus based on what the tradition is supposed to be good at.

 

[Ahglock]

I didn't think about it at first, but it is nice to see Wisdom showing up for Wizards. Given that they're usually presented wise-but-frail sages, 3e's Int-Con-Dex focus was more than a bit annoying. Here's to hoping that they tend towards using all of the mental stats at least a smidgen.

Depends on how much it shows up. I think its ok for it to be useful, I don't think its ok to be needed. Though I don't want to turn this into a MAD/SAd debate. There is a thread somewhere for that already.