Should there be more Feat restrictions?

[Aluvial]

I was reading the threads, "Robilar's Gambit" and "What do you want to see in 4e" and was thinking about whether or not certain feats should be listed as not working with each other.

As a wild example, you couldn't take Dodge and Power Attack. You could take one path, but not the other. I really don't have a reason for this example, but I'm sure you could argue one way or the other.... that's not the point of this question.

I suppose I am thinking that there are many feats, class abilities, what not, that stack up, reduce each other's penalties, and stretch the intentions of the original feats.

This is not to say that PC's shouldn't take combinations that help them, but that maybe that you not combine certain combinations.

This really isn't a fleshed out idea, just some musings.

Aluvial

 

[Remathilis]

Well, you really just messed up the fighter's shtick! (versatility in combat)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What he says.

Besides, I don't like the paperwork involved: Splatbooks would have feats with full-side descriptions. The usual 3-10 lines or so describing prereqs, benefits, and special stuff, and nearly a whole page with feats that don't work with this one.

 

[gizmo33]

4E will have broken feats and bad synergies no matter what checks you put in the core rules - that's just the nature of the game. As soon as you put a balancing feature for a feat in the core rules, some splat book will come out with a feat/prestige class/etc. that offsets that balancing feature. The best way to avoid problems is to be a gatekeeper for the game as far as what material you allow in.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

One of the smartest things they did with 3.x was named bonuses. If they'd have stuck with the concept, they'd have eliminated a lot of the problems and 'broken' builds.

Still, there's no substitute for a DM willing to say 'no'.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

At *most* it shouldnt work with things in the same book. I dislike balancing material from book A because of a combo from book B. If we did that, even garbage like Skill Focus might need a nerf.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Maybe not so much not being able to take two feats as not being able to use them both at once... attempts to stack rapid shot and twf for thrown weapons for instance. Thematicly, it seems weird to power attack and use combat expertise in the same round, for another example.

requiring a swift action, or the psionic example of expending a focus are two other ways to avoid stacking up certain feats you would rather see used individually.

 

[gizmo33]

Maybe not so much not being able to take two feats as not being able to use them both at once... attempts to stack rapid shot and twf for thrown weapons for instance. Thematicly, it seems weird to power attack and use combat expertise in the same round, for another example.

That's an interesting idea, and I think it somewhat relates to what Rodrigo was saying about named bonuses. The "thematic" issues could be addressed with a mechanic, say something like "combat disposition". The rule could be that in order to power attack, your character must have a "combat disposition" of "aggressive". Berserk frenzy type abilities are compatible, but combat expertise might require you to be in "combat disposition = defensive" mode and so aren't compatible with those things. The down side of this is the complexity - it's one more thing to keep track of during combat (then again, you don't have to keep track of a zillion feats being put into play at the same time). Named bonuses and descriptors like this are extensible to future splatbooks.

 

[Aluvial]

Again, I was just musing over the idea.

I agree that it would be a lot of work to see what wouldn't work with what, the problems of retrofitting books already published, and in general being overly complicated.

I think that what I might have been thinking was a feat tree of some kind, one where if you went down a certain branch, say "heavy hitting," you couldn't then come back and take the "finesser" side.

Again, probably too much work.

I do like the psionics focus thing and a very little of the Book of Nine Swords stuff.

Aluvial

 

[Phlebas]

That's an interesting idea, and I think it somewhat relates to what Rodrigo was saying about named bonuses. The "thematic" issues could be addressed with a mechanic, say something like "combat disposition". The rule could be that in order to power attack, your character must have a "combat disposition" of "aggressive". Berserk frenzy type abilities are compatible, but combat expertise might require you to be in "combat disposition = defensive" mode and so aren't compatible with those things. The down side of this is the complexity - it's one more thing to keep track of during combat (then again, you don't have to keep track of a zillion feats being put into play at the same time). Named bonuses and descriptors like this are extensible to future splatbooks.

New feat: Psychotic
Benefits: you are able to use feats not normally available because of your combat disposition
Penalty: None, You are teh gr8test
Special: Without this feat balancing rules will apply, take it as soon as possible before you RBGM nerf's it

Actually, something like aggressive / defensive pose would act as a buffer for some of the more outrageous powergaming - tidier writing of feats and better use of the 'named' bonus would also help. But you know that something like this will appear in a splatbook before too long