What ARE feats for? Min-maxing or Role-Play customization
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Shroomy
Adventurer
I generally pick feats that mechanically accentuate or improve my character concept, or to address a specific issue that arose during play. For my current character, the eladrin artificer Nith, I selected the Sneak of Shadows multi-class feat for a couple of reasons: my character concept was that of a mystical safecracker; because I was using the playtest material from Dragon and I needed to pick a multiclass feat for the purposes of a paragon path; and finally, because I wanted training in the Thievery skill (its on my class list, but I could take another skill in its place with this feat). This isn't min-maxing in my mind, but I did partially take the feat for purely mechanical purposes.
At second level, I chose Quick Draw because my Initiative rolls were simply abyssmal and I needed some help; also, since I'm an artificer, I switch between implements and weapons constantly, so I needed the help to preserve actions. Again, I took the feat for purely mechanical purposes, but in my mind, it still works with my character concept. My next three feats will likely be weapon proficiency (rapier), a power swap feat (I want to mix it up in melee once in a while), and the Alchemy proficiency from AV. All are chosen for specific mechanical purposes, but they all match up with my character concept.
At second level, I chose Quick Draw because my Initiative rolls were simply abyssmal and I needed some help; also, since I'm an artificer, I switch between implements and weapons constantly, so I needed the help to preserve actions. Again, I took the feat for purely mechanical purposes, but in my mind, it still works with my character concept. My next three feats will likely be weapon proficiency (rapier), a power swap feat (I want to mix it up in melee once in a while), and the Alchemy proficiency from AV. All are chosen for specific mechanical purposes, but they all match up with my character concept.
Holy Bovine
First Post
I have never seen anyone get a feat for anything other than character optimization. If that is "min-maxing" (a loaded term with tons of negative sterotypes attached to it) then every player I have DMed or played with is a minmaxer.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
It's about equal. It depends on the players you have, but if I have two feats that both make sense for my PC to take, I'll likely take the one that improves my chances in combat or that grants a significant ability. Almost all non-combat feats are skill feats and taking skill feats in 3E is just completely dumb unless you're looking to be very specialized and want to be the absolute best it is at this single thing you do.
Getting a PhD takes over twenty years from start to finish.
Min/maxing isn't bad, and it especially isn't antithetical to RPing. It's a product of what people actually do
Feats follow this perfectly. "Being good" isn't the opposite of roleplaying, it's a PART of it. My guy is a Malconvoker, so he gets a lot of feats to improve his summoning. Sure, he's definately improving his good parts and minimizing the bad, but how is that out of character? Summoning is what he does. Yeah, he doesn't take the Underwater Basketweaving feat, but then again, I never took the Underwater Basketweaving class in college.
Min/maxing isn't bad, and it especially isn't antithetical to RPing. It's a product of what people actually do
Feats follow this perfectly. "Being good" isn't the opposite of roleplaying, it's a PART of it. My guy is a Malconvoker, so he gets a lot of feats to improve his summoning. Sure, he's definately improving his good parts and minimizing the bad, but how is that out of character? Summoning is what he does. Yeah, he doesn't take the Underwater Basketweaving feat, but then again, I never took the Underwater Basketweaving class in college.
Irda Ranger
First Post
This. It's not "Min/Max" to say "My guy has spent more time studying swords than average". That's just describing your PC's difference from other dudes (who are better at using Axes, or doing cartwheels).
Ander00
First Post
In our case, all characters (in 3 campaigns, or 4 if you count another that hasn't gotten off the ground) chose to be tougher than other characters at first or (rarely) at second level (even the ranger who picked the archery path). I just went ahead and made toughness a bonus feat at first level for everyone in my campaign, so the customization process can start there.
cheers
cheers
Verdande
First Post
I'd definately say min-maxing. Sure, they customize your character, but is that really the point of the whole thing?
If you were just trying to customize your character, you would just put it down on your paper that your fighter prefers spears and medium armor, and that he likes jumping onto people and skewering them. Instead, you pick a feat that lets you do that without being mechanically behind a dude who stands there and slashes people with his generic sword. You wouldn't take the feat that gives you +2 damage to spears and +1 to jumping attacks, or whatever.
So, I guess it's min-maxing in the guise of customization, without being a very good substitute for it.
If you were just trying to customize your character, you would just put it down on your paper that your fighter prefers spears and medium armor, and that he likes jumping onto people and skewering them. Instead, you pick a feat that lets you do that without being mechanically behind a dude who stands there and slashes people with his generic sword. You wouldn't take the feat that gives you +2 damage to spears and +1 to jumping attacks, or whatever.
So, I guess it's min-maxing in the guise of customization, without being a very good substitute for it.
Walknot
First Post
voted: "Exactly equal for every player"
because: a deliciously bodacious statement!
But am conceding (sadly) that feats are mostly for mechanical advantage. for my recent ranger, chose "sure climb" for pure fluff but then quickly switched to "dwarven weapon training" for min-maxing only.
who's suprised? frankly having played plenty of characters fluffy as bunnies in the past, you know it is an excercise in frustration in a game where your feedback is continuous and numbers-based. it prompts the question - is *anything* in the game rules actually there for character development?
Or, do we characterize in spite of all that! (splendid)
because: a deliciously bodacious statement!
But am conceding (sadly) that feats are mostly for mechanical advantage. for my recent ranger, chose "sure climb" for pure fluff but then quickly switched to "dwarven weapon training" for min-maxing only.
who's suprised? frankly having played plenty of characters fluffy as bunnies in the past, you know it is an excercise in frustration in a game where your feedback is continuous and numbers-based. it prompts the question - is *anything* in the game rules actually there for character development?
Or, do we characterize in spite of all that! (splendid)
Similar Threads
