Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voss" data-source="post: 3908224" data-attributes="member: 57593">I can easily see a reason not to take this feat.  If blasting spells aren't totally revamped and made useful, there really is no reason to take it.Alternately, if you can still make an illusionist/enchanter style wizard, there isn't much of a need for it.  At best, even for a blaster, its a minor perk that allows you to place the AoE just a little more precisely without annoying your party members.To be honest, all of these feats strike me as significantly low-power.  If every feat is on the same level and will be through ALL the splat books, thats fine, but I don't expect Wizards to manage that.Toughness is just toughness + improved toughness.  2 extremely weak feats making one fairly weak feat.The combat advantage one may be OK, depending on what exactly that means.The action point thing is just insulting.  You want me to spend a very limited mid-level resource to spend another limited resource in a limited situation that only occurs if I fail a perception check?  Bzzt.  Try again.  The deny combat advantage feat just sounds better all around, and I can spend a low level feat, and no other resources.  Even just allowing a reroll to avoid the surprise would be better than this nonsense.Not happy with specific classes eating the general, useful feats, either.  Or a horrible mechanic like action points being shoehorned in.The first real crunchy preview isn't supposed to turn me off, folks!  Its bad enough I'll have to rip out the horrible naming conventions and ignore fully half the PHB races.  And I liked the idea of 4th edition!Oh, and some of you are becoming very certain that your speculation about how multi-classing will work is almost certain fact.  You might want to rein in that optimism, even if only to avoid personal disappoint, let alone muddying up the rumour mill.</blockquote>

Verification