Ways to Fix the Feat System in the Future

[Sorry_Charry]

One of the things I noticed (and liked) about 4E from the get-go was that it toned down the power creep.

In the previous edition (IMO), the game had taken quite a few steps away from a storytelling game with a tactical element. By the end, it seemed like one would need a degree in accounting to concoct the various optimized builds that were out there.

I'm not bothered by the feats as offered in the PHB (I only have the PHB, DMG, & MM). Even if some of the options are less than optimal, they are helping to keep the 'average' power of the options on the table down to a reasonable level.

If a ton of newer, more optimized feats are added to the mix... my only concern would be that the power creep has started its inexorable cycle. Since the overall effectiveness level of the feats will have risen (a gold-level 'must have' feat in other words, will have lost its luster... becoming just an average feat).

All in all, though, the number one rule is to have fun. If your table likes it... run with it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well the first thing I'd do here is split up 'feats' from 'talents'. Anything that affects your character in combat is a 'feat'. Everything that is non-combat or skill related is a 'talent'. And you gain both of them at different points throughout the leveling process. That solves the first problem right there, because you are no longer trying to balance combat and non-combat abilities against each other.

Totally agree with this. Would xp you but they won't let me....

 

[Dausuul]

I'm against all feats that boost your strongest abilities, especially when the boost is just a flat numeric bonus, like "+1 to attack rolls." Such things serve little purpose except providing "gimmes" for optimizers. Feats should provide lateral development--give you new abilities, or boost your weaker abilities so they become viable options.

There is a place for rules that let PCs customize their "signature abilities," like a fighter specializing in a particular weapon. But that place is not feats. That sort of thing should be a class feature where you select from a menu of options.

 

[Argyle King]

I believe feats should be primarily used to help the player define his character rather than primarily used as another mechanical piece of the combat engine.

 

[aurance]

Combat options and noncombat options shouldn't be in the same design space, that's pretty much it. I like the idea above of feat vs talent.

 

[Destil]

Well the first thing I'd do here is split up 'feats' from 'talents'. Anything that affects your character in combat is a 'feat'. Everything that is non-combat or skill related is a 'talent'. And you gain both of them at different points throughout the leveling process. That solves the first problem right there, because you are no longer trying to balance combat and non-combat abilities against each other.

This is similar to how I'd approach it, but not really in the same vein.

I want a feat/talent split to reduce complexity. Say we stick with 30 levels. What I'd want is talents to be things that are potentially powerful, but don't increase complexity. Things like weapon and armor proficiency, skill training/focus, toughness, durable, defense bonuses, backstabber. You should never have to think about a talent during the game, you write the bonus down on your sheet somwhere and go.

Feats would be allowed to be more complex and conditional. Things like bonus damage vs. bloodied targets, shield push, power attack et cetera.

The a heroic tier character gets, say, 3 talents and 3 feats over the course of the first 10 level, in addition to powers.

 

[Dausuul]

I like the feat/talent split (feat = combat, talent = noncombat), except why do we need feats then? At that point, we can just fold feats into the class/power system.

 

[Redbadge]

the Master Linguist feat is SERIOUSLY broken. every language at level 1? well level 2, as no supernal/abysal at level 1, but still, broken as hell...
i would maybe change the skill bonus to "+# (maybe 2 lvl 1, 3 at 11, 4 at epic or somthing?) to skill checks involving talking" or something like that, and then start with three langages and +1 language at level 5,11,15,21,25, with an aditional two languages (but no skill bonus) avalable each time you retrain feat.
that way the skill bonus is only for skills where you have to talk, instead of intimidating someone by holding a knife to there throat or somthing. and your not able to magicaly speak to everyone with only one feat, at herroic teir.

A player in my campaign was a dragonborn sorcerer that started with the Mark of Scribing at level 1, so he knew 6 of 10 languages right off the bat. Also, as a ritual caster, he had pretty easy access to any language he didn't otherwise know. I just don't think that there is a huge difference in practice of knowing most of the languages rather than all of them, so I thought we might as well make the player taking Linguist feel even better about it. Honestly, it still isn't that good to me, but those players of mine that like Linguist would be super excited about Master Linguist.

Also, speaking of Mark of Scribing - this is the type of competive feat I was talking about. It gives +2 diplomacy, 4 languages, ritual casting, and create scrolls in half the time, just because. Now this is something that might outshine Expertise for most players.

I think the talent/feat idea is one good direction the game could go. Someone else mentioned wrapping all of the combat stuff into the class mechanics, and I'm fine with that as well. It's just that sometimes I can envision characters that have flavor where I would want to show my increased accuracy/damage.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think giving knowledge of all languages for one feat is broken, exactly, but it seems lame--what's the point of having different languages if you can just learn them all with a single feat?

I think it would be better to "bundle" languages into other feats. For instance, Skill Training: History might come with one bonus language from the mortal world (Elvish, Dwarvish, et cetera). Skill Training: Arcana could grant your choice of Abyssal or Primordial. Skill Training: Religion could grant Supernal, and so forth.

Edited to add: ...In fact, it looks like they've already started doing this. See the "Ancient Lore of the Dawn War" feat.

 

[Redbadge]

I don't think giving knowledge of all languages for one feat is broken, exactly, but it seems lame--what's the point of having different languages if you can just learn them all with a single feat?

I think it would be better to "bundle" languages into other feats. For instance, Skill Training: History might come with one bonus language from the mortal world (Elvish, Dwarvish, et cetera). Skill Training: Arcana could grant your choice of Abyssal or Primordial. Skill Training: Religion could grant Supernal, and so forth.

This is good. I like this idea even better.

However, language doesn't really matter to the game unless the DM goes out of his/her way to make it. I'm not going to drop a plot hook in a language the party doesn't have access to. Otherwise, it doesn't even matter that the plot hook exists (I suppose you could drop a foreign language plothhook to generate realism or to pique the curiosity of players?). The DM also has to be playing along should the party wish to use their languages in other creative ways, such as turning a normal combat encounter with monstrous creatures into a diplomatic encounter. Normally, if I want to use language as an interesting obstacle to the party, I could do so whether a player took Linguist or not, effectively rendering the feat obsolete. At least with something like Master Linguist, the player gets to say "I'll be overcoming any linguistic challenges you throw at me, thanks." Sort of like a player that takes Combat Expertise get to say "I'm 5% more accurate than I was before." I think this version of linguist makes the feat less DM dependant. YMMV, of course.