Small annoyances that could / should be finally fixed with the Essentials

[Rex Blunder]

These would all be good ideas for 4.5, but I think (hope?) Essentials will be more focused than that. If the priorities of Essentials are really to provide a simpler experience for n00bs, while not breaking compatibility, some of these changes wouldn't be appropriate.

- Clerics can use the Religion skill with Wis
Changing the Religion skill to Wis would break compatibility, and allowing an exception for clerics would slightly increase complexity. Essentials should minimize the piddley-details fine print.

- Rogues can use shortbows
This would be fine, I think.

- Bonus languages for high Int
The current language implementation is terrible - balancing a story-benefit feat like Linguist against combat feats is a lost cause - but giving bonus languages for Int would increase, not decrease, the complexity of character creation.

- Implement Focus feat
This could really be done in any sourcebook. Personally, though, I'd just leave out all Focus and Expertise feats from the Essentials books, because, as keterys mentions, they limit you to a fraction of the possible cool treasure.

- Remove ALL stat requirements for feats
I agree, new Essentials feats shouldn't have stat requirements, because simpler is better.

Other suggestions, which include fixing the math and getting rid of those horrible, horrible Expertise feats, are unfortunately inappropriate for Essentials, since they'd break compatibility. I don't think Essentials can be subtractive.

 

[SabreCat]

My group has been having some issues with superior equipment. Although I kinda like the idea, spend a feat and get some type of extra whammy with your weapon, it causes issues as a campaign progresses. Namely that if you spend a ton of feats for a very specific weapon (or implement) you will forever be trying to get only that one type of weapon.

Have you discussed the possibility of "reskinning" with your DM? In my own game, most Superior Weapon Proficiencies are specialized training with an existing type of weapon. E.g. when the Paladin with Superior Weapon Proficiency: Executioner's Axe picks up a greataxe, he wields it using his special head-choppy skills, while others who don't have the feat can still use it as a greataxe.

Some proficiencies are difficult or impossible to spin like that (double weapons, for example), but anything that's "this simple/martial weapon, only better" feels right to me played this way.

 

[Klaus]

My apologies Klaus, I only mentioned Treetop Sniper because the content from Dragon 386 isn't in the Compendium yet.

Hey, no problem. Both feats have their restrictions. If you're playing an elf rogue, Treetop Sniper is a perfect feat.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Feats do not have to be exciting, that is one of the choices players need to make. If they choose all combat ones, then they are limiting themselves.

That said, I would not be unhappy to see a lot of the pure mechanical feats out of 4E, like expertise because I do not think it is needed, and it does encourage players to take purely mechanical feats.

At least things like Astral Fire and the like have some flavor.

 

[keterys]

Hell, I'd be okay if they just made a new feat:

Adventurer - you gain a +1 feat bonus to attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases to +2 at 11th and +3 at 21st.

At least it'd take up less space and cause less problems.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Nice! then that feat could be given as a bonus feat to all the Essentials classes.

 

[DonAdam]

Feats with stat requirements also make relying on Character Builder more problematic (since they don't show up), so I'd like to see them go.

 

[Klaus]

Feats with stat requirements also make relying on Character Builder more problematic (since they don't show up), so I'd like to see them go.

Ideally, the Character Builder could have a pop-up window in the Feats section that would allow you to turn off this or that requirement (instead of the "all in" feature it has now).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Why? It's handy enough as it is at +1/+2/+3, I've seen a feat or two that are +2/+3/+4 and I don't understand why that is. I don't understand why in newer books they have feats exactly like old feats, but better for a certain class or race.

Problem is with Astral Fire and the like is that it has two stat requirements to give the same bonus to a limited subset of attacks, while weapon focus has no stat requirement and gives that bonus to pretty much every attack someone has.

Furthermore, the attributes are not evenly distributed - the Cold Acid one comes up a lot for wizards because one of the attributes is Int. Astral Fire? Not so much, as it has two secondary attributes.

Regards,

 

[RHGreen]

The specialization bonuses would be better if they started more general and then got more specific.

One-Handed Weapons
Swords
Longsword

Then if you wanted to specialize in a Greatsword as well it would only take one feat.

Or if you wanted to specialize in a mace it would only take 2 feats.

Not much of a fix, but a step in right sort of direction.

It would help if we could buy a feat per level, rather than every 2. If that is too much then the feats should be balanced for per level.

Also - all combat stuff should have been kept separate from all non-combat stuff. You should not have to choose between a combat, professional or social things. They should all be separate. Each level you choose a combat thing, a professional thing and a social thing. Separate. Example: Specialize in Longsword AND specialize in Intimidating.

My tuppance.