WotC Blogs II

[hong]

If I have a wizard who has martial weapon proficiency that does tell me something about my character(if I want it to) and is open enough that different players can come up with different character reasons for possesing this particular feat. Perhaps my father was a warrior who favored this particular weapon and trained me from a young age, or at some point in my life I was forced to use the weapon to survive and realized I had a natural aptitude with it.

Now I have nothing against the type of feats like fiendish heritage for sorcerers or the Dragonmarks from Eberron...but they are much more limiting as far as PC background is concerned. It ties you to a specific world concept and while it's not a bad idea, I'm not sure I would want all feats to be that way.

What he said. I didn't like the regional feats in FRCS for exactly this reason. Sometimes you want to play against type.

 

[Mercule]

Huh. I have absolutely no idea what that means.

I thought it was just my sleep deprivation impairing me.

Based on my own wild guesses and the conjecture of others, I'm assuming this means that the feat system in 4E is going to be more "flavorful". That could be good, or it could be bad, IMO.

It would be good if it means getting rid of the insane amount of "+x to xx" feats that exist today. I'd also be happy if it reduced/eliminated the number of feats that opened up freakishly niche abilities. The latter are the worst because each one sounds cool enough that I don't want to ban it, but is so corner case that it just tends to clutter any lists.

It would be bad if the UA spelltouched feats were the template for the new system. Those have too much flavor, and it isn't a flavor I generally appreciated.

IIRC, PHB2 had a good balance of not bizarre but still interesting feats.

 

[wgreen]

It sounds fine that a PC who tries to stand up provokes, but it falls apart when you add in Improved Trip and spiked chains.

I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...

-Will

 

[ThirdWizard]

I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...

Not "the character falls" but "the rule doesn't mesh."

 

[wgreen]

Not "the character falls" but "the rule doesn't mesh."

I understand, but I thought the rule didn't work that way, and therefore does mesh.

-Will

 

[ThirdWizard]

I understand, but I thought the rule didn't work that way, and therefore does mesh.

Ah, I think in this case it means "makes those options [Improved Trip, Spiked Chain] better than originally intended." It's the case of one area of the rules changing another area in a way that they didn't anticipate.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I thought that didn't work, because the AoO would take place while the target is still prone...

-Will

Wasn't that one of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5? I know it doesn't work that way NOW but I think it was allowed then.

I seem to recall having been sidelined by a wolf that kept tripping me some years ago.

 

[Cadfan]

Dodge has always disappointed me as a feat because it showed so much promise. The idea that a character could pay specific attention to one particular enemy and gain defensive bonuses from it is pretty cool. Its just that a +1 dodge bonus is lame in the extreme for the amount of effort it requires to use.

If dodge had been the first step down a chain of feats that eventually led to a handy +3 ac, +3 reflex saves, +3 opposed rolls versus that foe, or something, then it would have been pretty sweet. You'd see fighters taking it to improve their disarm attacks, etc.

The Swashbuckler tried to fix this problem, but failed due to general lameness.

My brainstormed dodge feats:

Feat: AC Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent. Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen. You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Reflex Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent. Gain +1 reflex to Reflex Saves versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen. You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Opposed Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent. Gain +1 to all opposed checks made versus that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen. You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act.

Feat: Shield Dodge (feat subtype, Focused Combat)
Prerequisites: Dex 13, AC Dodge
Benefit: Each turn, designate a opponent. Gain DR 1 versus all attacks from that opponent until your next turn.
Special: The bonus provided by a Focused Combat feat is equal to the number of Focused Combat feats a character has chosen. You lose the benefit of this feat when immobilized or otherwise unable to act. You must be wielding a shield to get the benefit of this feat.

I know feats that grow exponentially have the potential to spin out of control if you write too many of them, but this is just brainstorming.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I've often played with the idea of giving people things like Power Attack for free. After all, it's not something that's going to 'break' the game if the mage can use Power Attack as a maneuver or the Rogue can occassionally get a few extra points of damage in. Never got around to it though...

We started putting a lot of stuff like that into the OGL version of d20 we were going to develop for Violet Dawn. There were quite a few Feats that were slated to become combat options for the same reason you mentioned.

We even had difference stances you could take while in combat like the normal Full Attack, but there were also other ones like Active Defense, Active Offense, etc. It was a cool idea that gave characters more options when they were in combat.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

OK, people seem to be having trouble understanding Peter Schaefer's blog. Fortunately, thanks to my years of experience in the corporate world, I am fluent in Obfuscate. I will do my best to translate.

Originally Posted by Peter Schaefer's blog
We are busy beating feats into shape. Too many feats just don't fit. A feat should personalize your character, not simply procure a mini-power or minor rule exception. A feat may utilize the latter to do the former, but the latter alone? No. Boring. Annoying to remember and to execute.

Translation: We are spending a good portion of each day making fun of the people who wrote some of the old crap for 3e. We also spend some time decrying the min/maxers who only take feats for the bonus they provide.

It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone. But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.

Translation: We knew what was broken in the system. I wanted to trash the entire thing, but kept getting shouted down. Eventually I gave in and we created something that is pretty much the same but with a new, better-looking wrapper.

This is one of the dangers of working in a system, whether it's five years old or born from scratch: You get so used to how things work, or how you think they work, that you stop thinking about how they would work better. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.

Translation: We were all having too much fun shooting the breeze and weren't getting much done, so a bunch of us were kicked off the project and they brought in some new stiffs to try and keep us on task.