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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5514813" data-attributes="member: 78116">I couldn't help but notice - given I am engaged in a rather feat themed discussion in another thread - that Robert J. Schwalb who seems to write just about everything DnD related these days <a href="http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/03/feats-do-we-need-them/" target="_blank">was discussing the need for feats on his blog</a>. The basic argument is that he doesn't feel that the sheer feat proliferation in 4E is good for the game, with the way characters are built providing plenty of character choices instead. A good example of this that made me think a bit was that in 3rd, a fighter would say get a reaping strike like "power" by taking a feat (which added the miss damage). In 4E, you just have a power that pretty much does the same thing.He identifies several categories of feats and then talks about them (I won't spend time repeating the arguments he made - you should read the blog post because it is quite good!):Skill Feats: Basically I have to entirely agree with him. I have seen some players take these, but only to cheese out certain EDs and similar that use skills (Loremaster or something, whatever the ED is that makes an arcana check needing an absurdly high amount to get the best benefits). Otherwise the feat requirements are either too crowded, due to the most unsavory "feat taxes" or just because there are numerous far better options than a bonus to a skill.Math Feats: Aforementioned "Feat Taxes", though he brings up the interesting point that some of the superior defense feats just make already good characters very good. His example of the Dwarven Cleric with 21 will is a good example, where if you boost your defenses further it just means monsters practically can't touch his will. At the same time, I have to feel that if a player invests a lot of feats and resources into their defense - such as the cost initially of having a high will - they deserve to be pretty hard to hit. Also many of these benefits degrade with time - so it becomes much harder to resist being hit on NADs by epic tier especially.This is a pretty difficult thing to resolve in 4E overall, because without these feats PCs with chronically poor defenses can't keep up. Unfortunately the side effect is those who are already rich in a defense, can just get even richer. Overall I haven't found it too hard to deal with - everyone always ends up with a weakness. No matter how many feats they take. Combined with MM3+ creatures often doing damage in ways that don't directly require hitting an enemy - so they can still be a good threat.Race and Class Feats: Of the things he mentioned, I thought this was the most illuminating of the things he wrote. If I was wondering why there weren't a lot of racial feats or class feats in Heroes of Shadow, this might be a good insight into the way the developers are currently thinking. Although again I feel there is a degree of designer schizophrenia here - probably not on Roberts part - because some races like Dwarves get a ton of feats (and got an article late last year with a billion more). Others of course get nothing.For me it's not the proliferation of these feats, it's the sheer inconsistency in how they are applied. Some races being engorged with them like Dragonborn and others having nothing like the changeling. Like with Wizards obsession with giving fighters/wizards everything, some races get tons of support and others get nothing. I feel if the support was more even across classes and races, this proliferation wouldn't even be a huge issue.It does mean though the 3 revenant racial feats are quite the curiosity in the book. I think these are probably going to be republished to be official errata in this case. We'll have to see though :OPower Feats: This would include powers like the CD Vecna power from a while ago. I have to again agree with him. These tend to fall into the "obscenely useless" category or are just so useful nearly everyone takes them (The CD that gives vulnerability to radiant damage is such a fantastic example here). I don't mind these overall though, but they always feel like too much for a single feat.Personally I see a lot of merit to his argument and wish 4E had been designed with feats being more universal. Unfortunately, due to it not being designed like that from the start it does make things very unfair for races/classes that come before. Feats are options and unfortunately, being denied options that previous classes got by sheer poor luck (or just being ignored, like the changeling) is somewhat of a screw job. At the same time, if this is applied consistently going forward it might inevitably balance itself out by the end of 4Es lifespan.In many ways though, if this is the kind of logic that the designers have I do wonder what a 5E will look like if it takes these kinds of lessons onboard.</blockquote>

Verification