The redefinition of feats.

[Lord Pendragon]

I play 4e exclusively these days. I played 3.x for several years, 1st-level to 20th. The following thread isn't meant as an attack of either edition, but rather a discussion of the evolution of a game mechanic, namely, the feat, and the positive/negative aspects of such.

Recently I was flipping through a friend's copies of the Martial Handbook and PHII, and I was stricken by a rather depressing realization. The transition from 3e to 4e seems to have redefined the feat.

In 3e, while there were still various prerequisites which restricted some feats to particular classes ([Divine] feats, for instance,) the majority of feats were available to all classes/races. Prerequisites focused on ability scores, or class abilities that were available to several classes (see again, [Divine]).

However, as 4e continues to develop, it would appear that feats are becoming more and more specialized. Many of the feats in Martial Power have 3 or 4 pre-requisites, restricting them to a specific class of a specific race, with a specific class ability.

As I see it, whereas feats were once generalized edges one could consider for nearly any character, they are becoming specialized to the point where a given feat would almost be better considered an optional class feature.

A parallel that occured to me was with the 3e rogue's "Special Ability" class feature. Upon reaching mid-levels, rogues could begin to pick from a select number of special rogue-only abilities. Replace "feat" with "special ability" on the 4e character advancement page, then fill in your race/class/focus's list with those "feats" they qualify for, and you have a similar feel.

I'm not sure I'm happy with this change. It makes listings of feats rather annoying to browse through, since each compilation will contain very few feats applicable to a given character. Particularly if one doesn't (as I do not) have access to the online character builder, which I presume can filter out all feats for which one doesn't qualify.

A part of me wonders whether the game wouldn't have been better served by in fact replacing half the "feat" awards during character advancement with "special ability" and giving each class their list of optional abilities, rather than bunching feats only available to genasi beastmaster rangers born in July in with all the others.

Thoughts?

 

[pawsplay]

I'm more struck by the change from, "A feat allows you to do X" to feats mostly giving bonuses of various kinds.

 

[Crothian]

Powers really allow one to do X these days. feats it seems are more there to agument them and also to not out shine them.

 

[RefinedBean]

I'm more struck by the change from, "A feat allows you to do X" to feats mostly giving bonuses of various kinds.

Yeah, this still bugs me as well.

Honestly, it's hard to go gung-ho with meeting pre-reqs for a "feat" that only gives you a bonus. "YES! Finally, my close blast spells do +2 damage when I'm adjacent to an ally! It's the dawning of a new, fantastic era."

It's all in the name, really. They don't feel like feats anymore; maybe they need a new name. Advantages? Perks? Something like that.

 

[Stalker0]

I personally don't mind the concept of specialized feats, I also like the fact that there are many designed to help compensate for non-optimal ability scores. However, I agree with you that there are way too many of them. I would rather have a base of general feats and then have these kind of feats available.

There are also a decent amount of feats that I consider so essential to the class that I think everyone will take them. I haven't seen a rogue build yet that didn't have the SA damage boost to d8's.

I don't think we need to see a "special ability" list. However, it would be nice to have some bonus feats from a list that are too weak for normal use. Similar to how they combined multiple feats into "technique" feats in 3e, you could create a subfeat list that makes them easier to pick up (this is similar to how multiclass feats are kind of "super feats" and therefore you can only have one).

Finally, I would say that the strength of feats are starting to increase with the new splats. Its power creep, but I think its what people want. We may be okay with weaker feats than 3e, but I think people want feats closer to that power level.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, this still bugs me as well.

Honestly, it's hard to go gung-ho with meeting pre-reqs for a "feat" that only gives you a bonus. "YES! Finally, my close blast spells do +2 damage when I'm adjacent to an ally! It's the dawning of a new, fantastic era."

It's all in the name, really. They don't feel like feats anymore; maybe they need a new name. Advantages? Perks? Something like that.

I think Diablo and WoW call them Talents.

 

[fba827]

However, as 4e continues to develop, it would appear that feats are becoming more and more specialized. Many of the feats in Martial Power have 3 or 4 pre-requisites, restricting them to a specific class of a specific race, with a specific class ability.

Keep in mind that you are referring to the feats in Martial Power. The feats in there (and Arcane Power) are specifically supposed to be for Martial classes, hence more restrictions.

You'll notice that PHB2 (which came out after Martial Power) does in fact have more general feats/fewer prereqs.

So using that limited set of data, I wouldn't so much call it a trend of the design, but instead that the book is just really specialized/focused on that specialty.


Of course, as the years wear on we can see how the trend continues...

 

[frankthedm]

To make sure fewer unintended combos happen, feats now are both limited in scope and limited in who can take them. Rather than having to playtest a feat as if all classes to take them, you just have to run the numbers against those who can take the feat.

 

[RefinedBean]

I think Diablo and WoW call them Talents.

Oh, you!

Talents work, though. Better than Feats.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Oh, you!

Talents work, though. Better than Feats.

Indeed. I also think "Feats" is a better word for Martial powers than "Exploits," notwithstanding that recent Dragon article where they said otherwise.