New Design & Development: Feats

[Cadfan]

It appears that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall.

But it is almost certainly better for crafting rules for high quality two weapon fighters, high quality spring attackers, etc.

Consider Spring Attack in 3e. Sure, anyone could take it. It was actually GOOD, though, only for a few types of characters. A rogue could kind of take it, but most didn't because there were better choices and giving up iterative attacks really sucks. A fighter could kind of take it, but until the PHBII it was almost always a bad option (barring spiked chain cheese) because giving up iterative attacks is murder on a fighter.

It wasn't until the Scout that spring attack, used for its actual intended purpose of springing forwards, attacking, then ducking out of reach, was a good idea. The class itself had to be designed around giving up iterative attacks in order to spring attack instead.

I personally favor moving Spring Attack into class feature territory, with the caveat that as newer classes come out, some will probably cover similar territory. You know, if spring attack is a rogue ability now, and eventually a Swashbuckler is released, there's some logical crossover between the two.

I don't quite think that two weapon fighting should be automatically off limits to everyone but rogues and rangers, but I'd be shocked if it really was impossible for other classes. The fact that most of the neat two weapon fighting abilities show up as Ranger class features doesn't preclude other classes from using two weapon fighting as well.

 

[Aage]

I don't have a complaint.

Meaningful choices are good. It appears that feats like TWF, Spring Attack, etc. are being re-dedicated and siloed off into classes. That might be good for streamlining difficult decisions for newer players, but it is indisputably bad for player choice overall. Slowing down your caster progression is a sub-optimal choice on a much more staggering scale than TWF.

This is only true if caster progression works as in 3.5e.

My guess is that in 4e you wouldn't slow down the caster progression, you would just elect to take two-weapon fighting from fighter instead of a spell/power from the cleric. Which wouldn't be sub-optimal, if the different powers are balanced against each other

 

[Mad Mac]

No offense, but perhaps people wouldn't have such negative reactions (I don't see anyone "baffled") if the feat actually gave any indication that it was the wizard order based feat you are calling it. Like say an [order] tag, a prereq line "entry into the Order of the Golden Wyvern, no other [order] feats" or any other hints besides using the same bit of flavor text as another article which folks may or may not have read.

Eh, fair enough. Do you honestly think it's not a tradition feat, though? There's reasonable doubt, and then there's no paticular reason to think otherwise.

Also, "entry into the order of the golden wyvern" is roleplaying fluff and is not going to show up in the rule mechanics for any feat. One of the feats I mentioned earlier, "Child of Winter" in the Eberron campaign setting book, is a good example of an organization feat.

Pre-reqs for the feat are simply non-good alignment and ability to cast spontaneous summon natures ally (Be a Druid, basically). There's no join the organization requirement, or prohibition on taking any other organization feat. The Fluff description for the feat indicates you have learned the teachings of the Children of Winter, and you get the ability to summon vermin using the Summon Natures Ally spells.

You also gain the ability to take other feats unique to the children of winter, such as vermin shape or vermin companion. Those feats do make reference to having Child of Winter as a pre-req. So I don't see anything in the feat description that goes against my assumption. At the end of the day, it's just a feat chain.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Consider Spring Attack in 3e. Sure, anyone could take it. It was actually GOOD, though, only for a few types of characters. A rogue could kind of take it, but most didn't because there were better choices and giving up iterative attacks really sucks.

I think the overall changes to movement and iterative attacks already address Spring Attack better than moving the feat into a class silo. Without having to worry as much about AoO and losing iterative attacks, Spring Attack becomes much more desirable.

 

[Sadrik]

That is not the fault of the Cleric, it's the fault of TWF.

But that's not the point.

It is really the fault of the rules!

It is so suboptimal for anyone to even attempt to dual wield without the feat that it is basically a non-option. Those rules should be re-written so that anyone can dual wield and then when the rogue or ranger ability is applied that they actually get a bonus while doing it rather than just mitigating a huge penalty.

I actually liked the way they did it in 2e. Give characters a -4/-4 and have their dex modifier offset that penalty. So that dual hammer wielding cleric could have an 18 dex and have no penalties while dual wielding. And if they picked up rogue or ranger they would get a +x bonus while dual wielding. Done.

Hopefully 4e does it a little better on this account.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This is only true if caster progression works as in 3.5e.

My guess is that in 4e you wouldn't slow down the caster progression, you would just elect to take two-weapon fighting from fighter instead of a spell/power from the cleric. Which wouldn't be sub-optimal, if the different powers are balanced against each other

That is delaying caster progression-- if what was formerly acessible as a general feat becomes a martial power.

A 3e cleric does not have to make a choice between full access to his class features and fighter feats. He only has to make a choice between feats.

I do understand and agree with your larger point.

 

[Jinete]

What i suggested had nothing to do with experinece but with common sense. I implied that you had to rename things in 3.5 to fit your homebrew, and that's exactly what you'll have to do in 4th Ed.

And I implied that renaming an odd PrC or spell now and then isn't quite the same as renaming a core class or feat.

If thinking about alternative names is to troublesome for you, you can always play in a published setting.

Dude, I'm not getting that common sense you mentioned. How does a published setting, which is usually more fluff heavy, help me if I don't like the names WotC comes up with?

 

[Sadrik]

I kind of like the concept of removing PrC specific abilities and making the available former "class features" into feats and allowing characters to take them however they want.

This is actually much more open and lenient than 3e's PrC system. So if Golden Wyvern Adept is actually the start of a paragon "path" feat chain that describes abilities-wise what the Golden Wyvern Adepts can do.

I am all for it because I hated the PrC system in 3e- dont get me started. But if it is a single feat that has no bearing on anything else and the designers thought that it just sounded cool. I say tsk tsk, get a better name.

 

[Smerg]

I actually think that Golden Wyvern sounds like the cheezy line that a mage might use in a wizard singles bar.

'Hey baby, I am a Golden Wyvern and you know what that means <wink wink>.

Yeah, that's right, I am a master of the staff.

Let's free the Golden Wyvern and sculpt some magic together.'

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Eh, fair enough. Do you honestly think it's not a tradition feat, though? There's reasonable doubt, and then there's no paticular reason to think otherwise.

If I had read some other article talking about the existance of tradition feats in 4e, I might. But my point is that I shouldn't need to. Why not just say "The first two demonstrate the minor evolution of familiar favorites from 3rd Edition, while the other two show off some new tricks one shows how action points and feats will interact, and one is a tradition feat in a style players of Eberon or Saga will be familiar with." ?