"Siloing" feats?

[ExploderWizard]

So perhaps it would be a good idea if feats got siloed into "combat" and "non-combat" feats, leading to more rounded characters?

This would be just more rules dictating how a player should develop his/her character. Having every PC be equally well rounded by force is just as bad as a whole party of super combat specialists.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Having every PC be equally well rounded by force is just as bad as a whole party of super combat specialists.

Which in many ways, depending on the person you are... isn't bad at all.

As a DM... I want all my players to feel as though they can and do make interesting choices and are a solid component of doing the job at hand, whatever that job is. If it's in combat or out of combat, I don't ever want my players to feel like they have to sit out because they can't be a meaningful addition.

If that means putting into place some rules so that they don't 'self-nerf' all in the name of "creating an interesting character"... then I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

 

[MrMyth]

Well, quite. That's why Weapon Focus is like the tenth feat I would consider getting. Weapon Expertise, now, that's more like it. Toughness, too, and proficiencies. These are feats that can quite literally be the difference between life and death for a character.

Sure, Weapon Focus isn't necessarily early on the list, but it usually ends up there somewhere. But the thing is, even at low levels... is +1 to hit, or +5 hp, going to be so key that it must be taken? I don't genuinely find it so - as much as I usually want to, I rarely find myself taking toughness. Now, it becomes more of an issue with some of these feats as they scale into Paragon and Epic, when Expertise becomes pretty much required - but I'd say that is a flaw with a few specific feats, rather than the overall system.

I mean, all that said, I'm not entirely opposed to what you are proposing (having a seperate slow of feats for combat and non-combat). I like the idea conceptually - but I don't feel that 4E has failed entirely to make non-combat feats a viable options they are now.

I say this, admittedly, with most every character I make heavily optimized. But at the same time, when I have made a character whose choices have been entirely driven by what seems appropriate, rather than what seems most powerful, I have still found those characters perfectly functional in actual play.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

This would be just more rules dictating how a player should develop his/her character. Having every PC be equally well rounded by force is just as bad as a whole party of super combat specialists.

See, I would view such a thing as a natural extension of 4E's new direction, where they severely limited the ability to "master the system" for great benefits and went out of their way to make sure there were no pitfalls or "traps" for players in character creation to result in making an underpowered party member. The point was to be balanced with your peers, so why not further enforce that balance, so all are equally adept at combat and non-combat situations?

I don't agree with such goals, but that's why I don't play 4E.

EDIT: OP, you make a good point about the threat of death always making combat abilities more preferable. I have a hypothesis that in general, non-combat abilities must give a much more significant benefit than a combat ability for it to be competitive, at least for players who aren't just "taking the feats that best fit my character, rp-wise."

 

[Gort]

Sometimes I try to think of how good a "skill" feat would have to be to warrant taking instead of Weapon Expertise.

I think even if there was a feat that let you roll a 20 on any skill check on a specific skill (with appropriate DM-limiting to prevent you doing dumb stuff) I would probably still take Weapon Expertise instead.

 

[keterys]

I would love to silo things further. From utility powers to feats. I'd also be okay if feats had only a miniscule effect on combat potential instead. But however it's done, as much silo-ing as possible so I can take feats to match by RP character without in effect also choosing to just be less effective.

It's very much the 'Phantom Steed or Fireball' example that made them split off rituals.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

When was the last time your PC died from a failed diplomacy check

Errrr......

It didn't happen to my PC, but we did have a PC in a party who utterly failed at diplomacy with the Prince, and wound up exiled by force. He wasn't actually dead, but he certainly was functionally so.

So, regardless of system, I'm all in favor of rounded PCs.

 

[Wik]

Great minds think alike - I mentioned this very occurence the other day. And I want to do something about it in my next campaign - have a mandatory number of "non-combat" feats, or somethign to that effect.

 

[Hjorimir]

It was just this last weekend that the group of PCs were bemoaning the fact that nobody in the group was trained in Diplomacy...not a one. They really felt the pinch and it made an impact on the level of information they recieved; information that they desperately need.

Admittedly, I have a tendency to run rather role-play centric campaigns as far as D&D goes.

 

[Tallifer]

Thievery is another thing. While there are many ways to open a door, chest or disarm a trap, thievery is the most efficient way. Indeed as long as it is not a bottle-neck, a dungeon master could make somehting only defeatable by thievery. (For example, an alternate passage to the one filled with guards.)