New Design & Development: Feats

[Gundark]

The feats look great. Good job WotC.

I have to say I'm sorry people jumped to complaining instead of talking about the good.

 

[Klaus]

To create a dual weilding sword lovin' priest of Kelanen in 3E, hands down the better cleric will take TWF feat rather than 2 levels of fighter and losing an entire level of spells + 2 caster levels.
The better holy swordsman will take the 2 fighter levels (+1 BAB and an extra feat).

This is a design flaw with 3E. You have to stay cleric or appropriate PrC to be a cleric at a decent power level to ECL. The TWF feat blows chunks for a cleric because of the stat requirement. 15+ dex on a cleric? A cleric who takes TWF for a feat wasted one of his limited feats and is sub-optimal. If the cleric takes some fighter levels he has diluted his caster levels and is sub-optimal. Where is the good design? Where is the increased choice? A cleric must be a caster first -melee second or else he is sub-optimal. So whether the class design is flawed or the feat is flawed; there is a flaw that needs to be corrected.

The simple thing would be to fix the feat, but that would be errata not a new edition. 4E seems to be addressing the larger change of the class/multiclass system. I feel this is a good choice/design because although the feat system in 3E allowed many choices, it was only an illusion of choice because most feat choices were sub-optimal for classes. Tie the big feats to classes that can use them and use the 4E feats to customize those talent trees. It does help 'noob' proof the game but that is a good thing. If you're able enough to tinker with sub-optimal feat choices in 3E, I am sure you will be able to jigger the multiclass system in 4E.

I will also add that clerics (or druids) are horrible examples to use for this discussion because they bring way to much to the table to begin with. The 3E cleric is a juggernaught that needs no feats or 'build' to be effective. It is a class without peer in the PHB and a PrC amongst NPC classes when you add in splat books.

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.

 

[Aage]

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.

The problem is at earlier levels: A cleric6/ftr2 has sacrificed an entire level of spells for +0,5 BAB and two bonus feats.

 

[Cadfan]

Huh. Its almost like a person who wants to be a strong spellcaster who also fights in melee sometimes is supposed to be a cleric, and a person who wants to be a strong melee combatant who also casts spells sometimes is supposed to be a paladin.

 

[Rykaar]

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.

If multiclassing is as flexible and engaging as it is in SWSE, we'll all be fine with whatever vision we want for our respective characters. Yes, each class has a finite number of talent trees associated with it, but most classes have an array of talents within those trees with no prereqs that are immediately useful, scale well, and have amazing synergy across classes. For how self-contained SWSE current is (it's one book) character creation is extremely dynamic.

I think we look at 3.5's abundance of feats as a way to let any single class have a vast array of options. I suspect 4E will simply require you to multiclass to achieve the same goal. And from a RP sense, this is reasonable--if your "Warlord" wants to jump around like a cat in battle, he's not going to learn how to do so from an "Old School Warlord", he's going to go learn a few things from his buddy the rogue.

Also, talent trees mean you break out of the "At level X gain Y talent" model, which is truly a cookie-cutter, or "straight jacket".

The net result of either system is a character tailor made to your likes and dislikes. The difference is you can't necessarily hide all your esoteric feats behind "Level 10 Warrior" anymore--you need to say "Level 3 Warrior/Level 2 Wizard/Level 5 Rogue" which really says more about your character anyway.

Before you bemoan the loss of the vast array of feats that anybody can learn, see what options are truly open to your character.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

We can't really say that, though.
*snip*
Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.

I like the idea of making all costs opportunity costs. It seems nicely elegant.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

No, but at 7th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr5 for a Divination or Restoration, he was not there.

And at 9th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr7 for a Commune or Raise Dead, he was not there.

And at 11th level, when the party turned to the Ftr2/Clr9 for Find the Path or Heal, he was not there.

etc.

 

[jasin]

Emphasis added.

This part you emphasized is what makes it truly weird.

Why is this not a wizard ability but a feat?

 

[The Little Raven]

Why is this not a wizard ability but a feat?

Probably because wizard class abilities have a bigger impact on customization, and they need to make sure there are enough feats for every class.

 

[Cadfan]

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

1) By having both wizard class abilities and feats designed for wizards, it lets you use all of your choices on wizarding.
2) A wizard class ability can only be chosen when gaining a level of wizard. A feat which augments wizard abilities is more flexible, and can be chosen more easily by multiclass characters.
3) If a wizard's abilities are his spells, making this a wizard ability would require the wizard to sacrifice spells known to learn to shape his spells around allies. Maybe the designers prefer that this sort of ability trade off with feat choice rather than spell selection. Or rather than whatever else you get as wizard abilities.

If a wizard's class abilities are full of abilities much like this feat, then yes, it would be incongruous to have this as a feat rather than a class ability. But that's not the only way to divide things. I personally like the idea of having a wizard's class ability be his arsenal, and then providing him with feats to augment that arsenal. Its not the only way to do things, but its one that could be fun.