New Design & Development: Feats

[Cadfan]

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.

It IS a wizard class ability, its just one that uses a feat slot.

Its a feat that provides benefits to wizards using wizard powers. Now, nothing in the feat says "only wizards may take this," but if you aren't a wizard and haven't got wizard powers, it doesn't do anything for you.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

Totally agree on Golden Wyvern Adept, from there description and from the other feats it seems more like a class ability than a feat. Then again if I was playing a wizrd while the other feats might be useful I could care less if I had them. Ways to improve my spells though I do want, so I'd want to be spending all my feats and class abiltitie son making me abetter wizard not generic buff # 7.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ugh, more class straight jackets. Sorry fighter, spring attack is too "rogue-y". Oh you want to shot on the run? Congradulations, it comes packaged with favored enemies, animal companions and divine spells. This is one of the first bits of news that has me seriously worried.

They basically told us that this was the way it's going to be in the last podcast. They're trying to divide up the major tricks into classes, so that each class has a kind of shtick. They mentioned that the warlock is easy to design for because he doesn't have 30 years of baggage, but the big four are harder because everyone wants them to be all things.

Given what they've hinted about multiclassing, I don't see a big problem here. From the way it sounds so far, if you want Shot On The Run, you multiclass with rogue or ranger, and pick it from the list of powers. Since you're not actually a ranger (your class is fighter, not fighter/ranger), you don't get the rangery things (if they even exist anymore). You just borrow class abilities.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They're both excellent opportunities for complaint! I'm sure someone will latch onto them.

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?

Probably the rogue on an Assassin Paragon Path.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If 4e is designed to simplify (as intended):

All bonuses provided by feats would be a feat bonus.

Following this train of thought, then all bonuses provided by arcane spells (or wizard powers if you will) would be arcane bonus.

Which nicely ties in with the power source concept...martial bonus, divine bonus, etc...and I guess talents would provide one of these types of bonuses.

If these are the only types of bonuses...then the world of stacking would be quite a bit simpler than what it is now. A lot of ifs...but one can always hope.

Oh god yes please.

 

[Jack99]

^^ tough luck for those groups with more than one of a type (two wizards for example), but else I agree, it does sound like a much simpler way of handling bonus stacking.

 

[KingCrab]

This isn't "Shape" spell so much as it is "Hole in the Middle" or something.

Hmmm... Swiss spell?

 

[Sadrik]

I really like that.
Have 4 groups of bonuses:
Feats
Arcane
Divine
Martial

Allong with the standard:
Situational

 

[Sadrik]

Anybody notice the reference to combat advantage? I think this is the new standard bonus that you get against somebody if you: flank, feint, have higher ground, being invisible, flat footed etc. Also the rogue probably keys off of gaining a combat advantage.

 

[KingCrab]

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.

I don't think "shape spell" is more boring than "augment spell."

I haven't heard the complaints about lack of flavor that you speak of, but perhaps I'm reading the wrong threads. I'm just one of the people that prefers the core to be a bit more generic. My complaints (and many of the complaints I've read) are about the type of flavor they're putting into the core.

My campaign setting might not even contain wyverns. It doesn't make much sense then that this ability (that has nothing to do with wyverns in a world where wyverns don't exist) is named after them.