Ways to Fix the Feat System in the Future

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

The one advantage of feats in this context is that the feats could be available to all classes or to a power source so that one does not need to repeat feat choices in the class writeup.

 

[Xris Robin]

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.

I think this should also apply to Utility powers. Because I hate having to choose between say, Shield and Arcane Mutterings.

 

[BobTheNob]

This differentiation between combat and non-combat not in the same design space is a growing concept in these forums (and one that I agree with).

But wow would you need some robust house ruling for it, because its a real variance from how 4e is put together so far. Judging from WOTC reluctance to "cut the fat" on deprecated feats, they really are a "just keep building on what we have" philosophy, and a change like splitting combat from non combat would require throwing out alot of already established lore.

A house-rule dictating mandatory split between certain feats (the talents vs feats idea) gets you over the line, but I would hate to imagine anything more complex than that.

 

[Dausuul]

This differentiation between combat and non-combat not in the same design space is a growing concept in these forums (and one that I agree with).

But wow would you need some robust house ruling for it, because its a real variance from how 4e is put together so far. Judging from WOTC reluctance to "cut the fat" on deprecated feats, they really are a "just keep building on what we have" philosophy, and a change like splitting combat from non combat would require throwing out alot of already established lore.

A house-rule dictating mandatory split between certain feats (the talents vs feats idea) gets you over the line, but I would hate to imagine anything more complex than that.

Yeah, it's a bit late to implement such a restriction in 4E... though I can imagine a few ways to make it work. We may have drifted over the line into "how should it work in 5E?"

 

[eamon]

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.

I kind support this idea, but I'd nuance it a bit: it's OK to provide a flat numeric bonus as long as it's not hugely powerful. Why?

See, the problem is that some people don't like character building or aren't very interested in optimization. And it's great to have a list of feats that virtually every character can take usefully without much thought. In the current system that includes things like Improved Init, heroic tier Weapon Focus, Toughness, etc. For some characters, such feats align with key strengths - but even then they're not strong enough to be auto-picks unless there really aren't many attractive alternatives.

And unless there are only few such bonuses, the situation will hardly ever turn into "gimmes" for optimizers; there will be choices to make, as long as the balance is right.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Well, you could... but I wouldn't necessarily think you'd want to. There are a lot of class abilities that have "improved" feats connected to them, that I don't necessarily think a class should automatically get. For instance, the tactical warlord receives Tactical Presence (half INT bonus to an attack when the ally spends an action point). And the warlord then has access to Tactical Assault as a feat (INT bonus to damage when the ally spends an action point). And the same is true for all the other improved versions of class abilities and racial abilities.

Not every ability a PC has should necessarily automatically get better as they level up. Making choices about which ones do is an interesting part of the leveling up process and is what differentiates different characters.

 

[Dausuul]

Not every ability a PC has should necessarily automatically get better as they level up. Making choices about which ones do is an interesting part of the leveling up process and is what differentiates different characters.

But why does Tactical Assault need to be a feat instead of, say, a utility power, or one of the options from a "menu-style" class feature? We already have a system for giving people a choice of combat boosts as they level up. Feats (as defined in this hypothesis) seem redundant.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But why does Tactical Assault need to be a feat instead of, say, a utility power, or one of the options from a "menu-style" class feature? We already have a system for giving people a choice of combat boosts as they level up. Feats (as defined in this hypothesis) seem redundant.

The difference being of course is that feats are not level-dependent and are still accessible at any point throughout your career. If you make it a utility power... you have to take it at whatever level it appears in the power list, and you then are forced to pass on the other utilities available at that level. Or if you don't take it, then you never get the chance to take it again without retraining.

And as far as menu-style feature... that basically just becomes a feat replacement system. Whats the difference between saying in the class write-up "your class abilities can get improved here, here, and here" as opposed to just having feat slots to improve them when you want? At least with feat slots... you can take these abilities when you want, if you want, and it can include plenty of options that aren't connected with class abilities at all. Where would something like Improved Initiative fall in if there weren't feat slots for example?

 

[Dausuul]

Or if you don't take it, then you never get the chance to take it again without retraining.

Um... no. You can put lower-level powers in higher-level slots.

And as far as menu-style feature... that basically just becomes a feat replacement system. Whats the difference between saying in the class write-up "your class abilities can get improved here, here, and here" as opposed to just having feat slots to improve them when you want?

None whatsoever. That's what I'm getting at. We already have menu-style class features. Why do we need feats too?

Improved Initiative is an argument for feats as a separate entity, I admit... but it's also an argument against, because its impact differs by class. It's an okay feat for rogues, and mediocre to bad for anyone else; in effect, it's a "rogue feat" masquerading as general. That's not to say the issue couldn't be fixed, but it underscores the challenge of balancing such things across all classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Um... no. You can put lower-level powers in higher-level slots.

That is true. But it also then means you can't get specific abilities until certain levels. Not to mention the fact that you only get a couple utility powers per tier, rather than the 5+ feats. So you're removing a lot of character customization for no real reason that I can see.

None whatsoever. That's what I'm getting at. We already have menu-style class features. Why do we need feats too?

Improved Initiative is an argument for feats as a separate entity, I admit... but it's also an argument against, because its impact differs by class. It's an okay feat for rogues, and mediocre to bad for anyone else; in effect, it's a "rogue feat" masquerading as general. That's not to say the issue couldn't be fixed, but it underscores the challenge of balancing such things across all classes.

I would suggest that certain Wizards also take Improved Initiative. And then you have things like Powerful Charge, which several different classes take... Durable, and Action Surge that go cross class etc. Now yes, you could create menus for every single racial ability, class ability, and improved version of every combat skill... but at that point you just create more and more menus, all of which give improved or extra abilities at certain points throughout the leveling process. So to my mind, a completely generic system of "at these levels you can take a 'feat', which can include things across a broad spectrum of possible abilities and choices" is just a cleaner and more accessible system in my opinion, plus you don't have to worry about cutting off certain classes from certain choices just because they aren't a part of the 'menu'.