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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ObsidianCrane" data-source="post: 4700283" data-attributes="member: 54918">Hmm I'll wait to see the actual book (or a picture of the page of an actual book) before making final judgement. The feat listing typically leaves types and conditions out when describing feats.However that said it seems to me in reading this thread that a number of people want to negate any weakness their character might have. These weaknesses are (hopefully) intentional design. You can choose how to apply stat bonuses, you have to choose optimal core stats, or secondary or even tertiary stats for example. Each choice has benefits and deficits and you should be considering and weighing, not automatically discarding the secondary and tertiary options.This is something 4E exploits a lot in its design - opportunity cost. Feats are where this is most apparent, each one is an opportunity and some (like Astral Fire etc) impose opportunity cost when you build your attributes as well. This feat is a long way from an auto-pick for my characters with 18+ starting attack stat. It is however a feat characters with 14 - 16 in an attack stat can really benefit from, and the availability of the Feat makes these lower attack stat characters far more viable, and thus allows for greater build options.Of every character I have built at the moment I have 2 that want this feat, and thats because the characters' counter to low defence is higher hit and damage. So I'm trading the opportunity to have a higher defence, for the higher attack. (This is a key advantage of Rogues, primary attack and defence stat are the same so they have lower opportunity cost, its also why Sneak Attack needs CA (hopefully).)Yes it looks like a very good choice, but its nowhere near the must have feat that it was in 3.X. Its not like people are rushing to take Sure Strike and its ilk.</blockquote>

Verification