Dragon 398 - Class Compendium: Feats

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dragon 398
Class Compendium: Feats


Grab an assortment of feats that were slated for Class Compendium.

Talk about this article here.

Why does the Mage apprentice require three feats?
Why does Arcane Implement Mastery require none?

More importantly, where's the feat that lets you swap the arcanist's spellbook (with Ritual Casting and the bonus rituals every 5 levels) for the mage's spellbook (that lets you prepare encounter spells as well, and doesn't replace spells as you go up in level)?
Yeah, let's give up a ton of feats and powers for the half-orc racial! That's a good deal! Excellent use of development time 10/10 would read again!
Was Pelor's Radiance really that bad?

Aside from the obvious ones, these seem pretty poorly thought out, especially the mage ones.
I have no idea why anyone thought you would get 1 feat to get all the mage school stuff. It was never going to work like that. It was always going to be a heavy feat investment to get it and it will probably one be worthwhile for some builds.
Why oh why the change to Pelor's Radiance?
It was one of the few channel divinity that was both over-specialized but good enough to be worth the expense of a feat.
Now we lose a good channel opion for yet another power that is strictly worse than turn undead.
General Essentials swappery: good.  The rest: Divinity feats are rarely worth bothering with.

On a specific note: reprinting Holy Symbol Expertise at this point without some means of making it affect both weapon an implement attacks, however, is just taking the pee.  For the extieth time, it simply doesn't help with the problem that most Symbol users STILL have, which is that the next standard for expertise scaling at 11th (and giving shiny bonuses) is unavailable to them without using two feats to everyone else's one.

Please, PLEASE at least errata the old expertise to match the new.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
So, this was WotCs chance to make Essentials and 4e more compatible.  To prove that Knights weren't supposed to replace Guardian Fighters, and that future support for Essentials was, indeed, going to be useful to pre-E classes going forward.

What do we get?  Feat taxes.  Big ones.  (What federal feat-budget-deficit are they trying to close here?) 

First off, six of these feats are for the nearly pointless purpose of making features of the already highly-compatible Mage and Warpriest available to Wizards (Arcanists?) and Clerics (Templars?!?!).  Huh?  So, a Wizard could spend three feats, turn in his Implement Mastery, and get a School.  Now, how is that Wizard different from a Mage?  Well, he still doesn't get to pick Suggestion, still doesn't get Magic Missle for free, still has Ritual Caster, and still has Prestidigitation.   Otherwise, he's a Mage.   Or, you could just play a Mage and take Ritual Caster.  That's one Feat instead of thee, you're up Suggestion & Magic Missle, and only out Prestidigitation and the cost of a few Rituals.  Hm.  Hey, maybe you'd want to play a Mage and pay your feat taxes to get Implement Mastery?  No can do, the trade is one-way.   The Cleric/Warpriest feat tax looks similar, 3 feats and loss of Healer's Lore to get the non-power features of a Domain.   It's also one-way.  The result is a Warpriest-like-Cleric who retains Turn Undead, though, so, while the cost is high, the benefit isn't as poor as what the Wizard gets.  (Of course, that assumes that Turn Undead isn't hit with the same nerf bat that tagged Pelor's Radiance.)

The Theif and Rogue get a more reasonable feat tax.  One feat, for the privilege of trading Backstab for an Encounter power or vice-versa.  Not terrible.  Backstab /is/ a +3 to hit.  There are a lot of good Rogue Encounter powers.  Pretty obvious, and pretty nearly an even trade, really - I'm sure plenty of DMs were already allowing this.  Except for the Feat Tax.  And the fact there's no language allowing you to take the feat more than once.  So, a Theif can only ever learn one Rogue power.  And, the nagging problem that Backstab works with Basic Attacks, so the Rogue will have to take a second feat, Melee Training, to be not quite as good with it as the Theif.  Backstab does do more damage as you gain levels, though, so a Rogue can trade in his lowest-level power for it, and watch it get a little better over time.

The Kinght/Slayer and Fighter have a similar arrangement.  For a feat cost, the Knight/Slayer can trade a Power Strike for one Fighter Encounter power, once.  Similarly, the Fighter can trade in an Encounter for Power Strike.  Like Backstab, Power Strike gets better with level, unlike Backstab, it isn't just damage, there are other class features involved.  The upshot.  The Knight/Slayer pays one feat to get a top-level encounter power (up to his own level) in exchange for 1 use of Power Strike.  The Fighter pays 2 feats to get a level-apropriate Power Strike in exchange for one of his Encounter powers.


What do we NOT get?  Ways to trade powers or features /within the same class/ without a feat tax.  Any way for a Slayer, Knight, or Theif to get a daily.  Any way for a Rogue or Fighter to get a Trick or at-will Stance.  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

General Essentials swappery: good.  The rest: Divinity feats are rarely worth bothering with.

Mostly reprints. Some of them are actually quite good. For example, Melora's Tide can save the characters 1 or 2 healing surges per fight if they have enough time for a few short rests after a fight. I am not particulartly impressed by the article. I understand and agree with the swapping of powes for feats. Not that it makes it worth to do so too often.

I guess I was hoping for class features and not feats in the style of a multiclass.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

I guess I was hoping for class features and not feats in the style of a multiclass.

Sorry, not dissapointing is against 2011 wizards policy with the exception of the racial stats which obvisouly came to us via some kind of space time anamoly from another dimension where Wizards didn't become trash or release essentials.
So, a Wizard could spend three feats, turn in his Implement Mastery, and get a School.  Now, how is that Wizard different from a Mage?

You aren't looking outside the box.

Given the Essentials hate, and the way Mike Mearls has waxed nostalgic on the Wizard was circumstantial evidence that he was trying to bring back the god-wizard of old. For example, its not hard to imagine the following conversation happening:


Dev 1: "Hey Mike, what do you think of this feat".
Arcane Schooling
Benefit: Choose a school of magic, such as enchantment or evocation. You lose Arcane Implement Mastery and gain the Apprentice Mage benefit associatedwith that school. At 5th level, you also gain the Expert Mage benefit from your chosen school. Finally, at 10th level you gain the Master Mage benefit of your school.

 Mearls: "Not good enough. The fans are already complaining I'm trying to return the Wizard to the ranks of god-classes. Publishing a Feat like that would only give them ammunition, and I want to stay in their good books. Chop it up into smaller feats and we will see......"

Dev 1: "What about making the Master Mage benefit its own (paragon) feat?"

Mearls:
 "I dunno.... The fans might still be suspicious, if the entry feat was more powerful than the other class feature feats. Lets break each feature up into its own feat and gauge their reactions....That way, if they complain the feats are too restrictive, we can always combine them later. 

The last thing I want, is for us to give them the impression we are favoring the wizard."




D&D Adventurer's League Local Coordinator: Calgary Region, Alberta

 

Adventurers League

Other

I do not debate on these forums to win, but to educate both myself and others. Winning an online forum debate about the rules of an RPG is about as rewarding and productive as watching paint dry.... Less so in fact.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

I find the assertions that WotC employees cower like children at the thought of what the forums might say to be ridiculous.  More than likely they just laugh about it and go about their business.

Should they honestly be spending their whole day worrying abut the forums, planning things around player responses, and trying to minimize negative impact, they are failing.  Simply put, the amount of strange/poor decisions made and the sheer confusion that has been created in the last 6+ months had better not be the result of a concentrated effort to appease the forums.  It would be failure by any definition.
I'm not too bugged about the feat tax. What I'm more disappointed in is the limited approach overall.

I mean... no way to actually trade for any of the actual features of the Essentials builds. No way to swap those out for even a single daily power. No way for anyone else to get their stances or movement tricks.

And maybe that is needed to preserve balance, but I was hoping for a little bit more.

Especially on the actual multiclassing end! No real way for characters to multiclass into the Essentials builds. I can make a Swordmage who multiclasses Warlock and can pick up various tricks of the standard warlock... but anything Hexblade specific? I'm pretty much out of luck.

The other way around has been slightly opened up. But that is where the feat tax really gets felt. If my rogue wants a ranger encounter power... I spend one feat to multiclass ranger. Another to swap Backstab for a rogue power. And then another feat to swap that for a ranger power.

Ah well. I suppose there isn't anything terrible here - I was just expecting a bit more. We'll be getting some more hybrid stuff in a month or two, I think I heard? So maybe that will add some of the elements that I have been looking for.
I thought the feats were pretty balanced, and i would like to keep my wizard ritualist feat, means i don't have to pay to learn a ton of rituals...
Mage misses out on 3 things - ritual caster (a feat), implement mastery, and a cantrip.

So your wizard spends 4 feats to LOSE implement mastery and become a half-assed mage. You lost several feats to save a cantrip and a few gold on ritual scrolls?

You would have been better off just taking the ritual caster feat as a mage, keeping all your mage class benefits, AND still coming out 3 feats ahead.

Seriously, PLEASE dont load those into the character builder. We're better off without them.

Also, unless the rogue gets a re-write allowing them to use dex for basic attacks, backstab is pretty useless, as it only triggers off of basic attacks. If its not fixed, I would suggest letting them use it off of an at-will

They ask char-op for a list of what is broken....well, here's 5 feats right off the bat.

The fighter's encoutner to power attack is pretty awful as well, as you need to spend 2 feats to get the power and rider to bring it up to par with your routine encounter power. Why do we need to spend 2 feats (or even 1 feat!) for an even trade?

This just illustrates how terribly broken the multiclass feats are.
I thought the feats were pretty balanced, and i would like to keep my wizard ritualist feat, means i don't have to pay to learn a ton of rituals...



You really think 2 rituals every few levels are worth 4 feats?

This illustrates what is wrong with trap options. People fall for them.
Even if the magic schools feat chain were just one feat it would be trash.  That's like a feat letting a tactical warlord swap their presence for bravura presence.  If you want to play a bravura warlord, just play a bravura warlord.  If you want mage schools instead of implement mastery, play a mage.  It's not hard.  The powers are all still modular.  They're as 'compatible' as any two builds of any other class.  These feats are garbage, sure.  They're worthless, I agree.  But they're also completely unnecessary to begin with, so why care?  If you want to play a mage with ritual caster, get the ritual caster feat.  Rituals aren't that expensive to pick up, anyway.

As for the other spellbook stuff - I expect that once the wizard's class compendium article comes out, their spellbook will work the same as the mage's anyway, and without any additional feat investment.


Several of the other feats are quite nice.  Slayers, Knights, and Thieves will all be happy to trade away one of their strike powers for an encounter attack from their parent class. 
Dump the nonsense about losing Arcane Implement Mastery, and School of Magic Apprentice would be a decent feat. It would then be on par with feats such as Destructive Wizardry and Phantom Echoes.

It's the same with Templar's Domain and being forced to lose Healer's Lore. Feats such as Battle Healer and Defensive Healing Word also boost healing word, but you don't have to give up anything to gain those benefits. Okay, so divine domains also grants you resistance or a saving throw bonus, but the solution to that is simple: state in the Templar's Domain description that the feat doesn't grant you those.

It would have been much better if they had included it as a single feat. Something along the lines of take this feat and from now on when you gain another use of power attack you may switch it out for a fighter encounter power of your level or lower. That would have balanced the +1 or whatever they get when they level for the ability to take encounter powers as it is you have to grab the current feat each time you want to take a power. So its a huge feat tax that is unfair...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think the Wizard feats are a special case because they require a wizard (arcanist) to give up the one feature they have that is definitely superior to that of a wizard (mage) -- namely Arcane Implement Mastery.  A Mage can get the extra cantrip with a magic item and can gain ritual casting with a feat.  All of the other Essentials classes have one major disadvantage compared to the standard classes -- lack of choice for encounter attack powers.  Mages do not have this disadvantage.

As I see it, there are only two sorts of characters who would bother with these feats:

1) Existing wizard (arcanists) who want to take the school specialization benefits without totally rebuilding their characters.  This group will eventually go away, as new characters who want those features would just begin play as Mages in the first place.

2) Hybrid wizards.  The only legitimate long term purpose of these feats is to provide a way for a hybrid wizard to specialize in a school of magic -- and even then he has to take Hybrid Talent (Arcane Implement Mastery) to qualify for it, so too bad if he had anything else in mind for his hybrid talent choice. 

Hi. I had to remove some content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct or it referenced content that did.

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, appropriate, and on-topic.
D&D is not a franchise - it is an intellectual property. There is a major difference between the two lol.

D&D Adventurer's League Local Coordinator: Calgary Region, Alberta

 

Adventurers League

Other

I do not debate on these forums to win, but to educate both myself and others. Winning an online forum debate about the rules of an RPG is about as rewarding and productive as watching paint dry.... Less so in fact.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

As to the re-print feats, I think the stand-out nerf was to Pelor's Radiance, a feat that's already pretty niche, being nice for Paladins or other classes that don't have anything that compares to Turn Undead.  Why nerf it when it's already not as good as Turn Undead if you ar a cleric, and there are other feats that let you get Turn Undead, if you're not a cleric?

Only thing I can think of:  The Cleric (Templar) article is going to similarly nerf Turn Undead, bringing it closer in power to the Warpriest's Smite Undead. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Hi. I had to remove some content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. If you would like to complain about how the forums are moderated, you can conctact us via email at //www.wizards.com/customerservice. Simply log in using you forum identity, then clickthe Ask a Question tab.
I have no idea why anyone thought you would get 1 feat to get all the mage school stuff. It was never going to work like that. It was always going to be a heavy feat investment to get it and it will probably one be worthwhile for some builds.

I'm not sure why there should be any feat cost to trading at least some features around within the same class.

A Fighter with Brawler or Tempest talent is probably expected to take Combat Agility, but could stick with Combat Superiority, for instance.  If there is some fairly straightforward mapping between features, they should be swappable within the class.  

I don't know how straightforward the Wizard and Mage features are... it seems to me the Mage comes out clearly on top, what with a 3rd at will, a cantrip choice that's actually useful, and encounter powers added to it's spellbook.  Of course, the Wizard (Arcanist) might get some of that, like it got the upgraded encounters. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I guess I was hoping for class features and not feats in the style of a multiclass.

Sorry, not dissapointing is against 2011 wizards policy with the exception of the racial stats which obvisouly came to us via some kind of space time anamoly from another dimension where Wizards didn't become trash or release essentials.



I didn't mean it like that.  I really do like the Essentials for their new stuff.  There are, of course, parts I don't like, but my relationship with Wizards tends to be "love the product, hate the marketing."

My argument was simply this:

If x (backstab) = y (encounter power) then x + z (feat) does not equal y where z is greater than 0.  And feats do grant something.

And that's it.  There's no conspiracy about the sinister intentions of WotC, no content complaints.

This is not an exact science.  Sometimes the Thief gets an extra trick, sometimes it's an addition to backstab.  So really its more like: Sum of the Backstabs + Extra Tricks = All Possible Rogue Encounter Powers.  But really we're talking about the 1 for 1 exchange.  Backstab for an encounter power.  That's the design of the class.  And the Essentials have to balance against their PHB counterparts.  Using a feat to acquire backstab was an illogical choice.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

The Templar Domain feats are actually nice for one particular brand of Cleric: the Strength/Charisma build. Before, you had to boost Wisdom some or else Healer's Lore was going to Waste. Now, you can just trade out that marginal healing bonus for something that might be more useful, like resistance or temp HP.

The build is still really unsupported, but these particular feats might be worth it for them.
Would a better trade off for the arcanist be that any implement mastery class features (even from feats) should move from being once per encounter to once per day.  That way they would still benefit from riders on their powers from the class feature and they can spend 3 feats if they want for the additional mage abilities.  I don't recall if all the implement mastery features are encounter features though and I don't know what riders exist since I've only ever played a warlock so I have no idea how balanced that would be.
Sarcasm asside, I am sorry that you feel that your game is destroyed by the Essentials product line. If you do not like the direction Dungeons & Dragons is heading in, you are more than welcome to join the legion of gamers who have found their favorite game/edition (1E, 2E, 3E, PF, VTM, Rifts, WFRP etc).

Nobody is forcing you to use Essentials material, but should you wish to exclude such content, you will need to accept the fact that your games will have little in the way of new content... But then again, there is more than enough 4E material contained within the PH1-3, and the powers books to last several decades of enjoyable game play (once you factor that many campaigns have yet to reach epic level, despite having played since June 2008).

If on the other hand, you come to terms with the fact that Wizards is taking the game in a different direction than you wanted, you may just surprise yourself by discovering that you enjoy some things about the new material.

While I don't like the Vampire (although their Healing Surge mechanics are innovative and refreshing), I have personally found most of the Essentials material to be innovative, and has shown that the core mechanics of 4E are far more flexible than its predecessors.

D&D Adventurer's League Local Coordinator: Calgary Region, Alberta

 

Adventurers League

Other

I do not debate on these forums to win, but to educate both myself and others. Winning an online forum debate about the rules of an RPG is about as rewarding and productive as watching paint dry.... Less so in fact.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

Sarcasm asside, I am sorry that you feel that your game is destroyed by the Essentials product line. If you do not like the direction Dungeons & Dragons is heading in, you are more than welcome to join the legion of gamers who have found their favorite game/edition (1E, 2E, 3E, PF, VTM, Rifts, WFRP etc).

Nobody is forcing you to use Essentials material, but should you wish to exclude such content, you will need to accept the fact that your games will have little in the way of new content... But then again, there is more than enough 4E material contained within the PH1-3, and the powers books to last several decades of enjoyable game play (once you factor that many campaigns have yet to reach epic level, despite having played since June 2008).

If on the other hand, you come to terms with the fact that Wizards is taking the game in a different direction than you wanted, you may just surprise yourself by discovering that you enjoy some things about the new material.

While I don't like the Vampire (although their Healing Surge mechanics are innovative and refreshing), I have personally found most of the Essentials material to be innovative, and has shown that the core mechanics of 4E are far more flexible than its predecessors.



Problem is, not everyone likes this new direction.  My DM won't play the essentials line as he has already bought all the other 4e books and has had enough.  No big deal to us really.  I didn't have any interest in the 4ee line anyway.  Admittedly, as you say, there are some very interesting & even innovative material from this new line. 

I guess it just irks some people that so soon after this new launch of d&d commenced they add another launch/reboot and have 'abandoned' the 4ec games to their own devices.  The 4ec side of d&d will no longer benefit from system fixes or newly released crunch/fluff articles which is what galls some people.

That being said, I am enjoying the 'feat tax' discussion; especially the analysis from players much smarter than I as to whether or not these 'upgrades/changes' work or even make sense.  Kinda the reason I still visit the character optimization section; I might not optimize my character in the end but it is nice to get the perspective of others before making those choices for my characters.

Kato

PS -  I would argue that the subject matter of d&d is intellectual property but that the game itself is also a franchise, if not a franchise in the McDonald's sense.





I guess it just irks some people that so soon after this new launch of d&d commenced they add another launch/reboot and have 'abandoned' the 4ec games to their own devices.  The 4ec side of d&d will no longer benefit from system fixes or newly released crunch/fluff articles which is what galls some people.

These strawman arguments about the death of 4e really need to stop. It makes me think of Chicken Little every time I hear these arguments raised.

What's worse, is that these arguments completely ignore any (and all) evidence to the contrary, including (but not limited to):


  • Developer Podcasts, Rule of Three, Insider articles, etc.

  • Heroes of Shadow compatibility with pre-E material, esp. in the event that Essentials material is excluded from the table (its no accident that people have jokingly referred to HoS as Arcane Power 2).


Whether you like or dislike the direction 4E has taken post-Essentials, is a matter of personal preference. What I can't understand is why people (on both sides of the fence) call the opinions of the other side wrong!

An opinion (by definition), is highly subjective and therefore - cannot possibly be wrong. An opinion can be uninformed/misinformed sure - but the opinion itself cannot be wrong. What Im trying to understand is why people feel the need to convince others that their opinion is better than a different one.

The argument is as rediculous as arguing whether Vanilla or Rocky Road is superior..... Its entirely subjective, and while Im sad that Vanilla (Essentials) with Sprinkles (4e) is now the default flavour, Im not anywhere near as choked up about it as some people are.

In fact, I would prefer a Vanilla & Sprinkles approach far better than one in which the preferences of one side (or the other) are completely ignored.

D&D Adventurer's League Local Coordinator: Calgary Region, Alberta

 

Adventurers League

Other

I do not debate on these forums to win, but to educate both myself and others. Winning an online forum debate about the rules of an RPG is about as rewarding and productive as watching paint dry.... Less so in fact.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

I guess it just irks some people that so soon after this new launch of d&d commenced they add another launch/reboot and have 'abandoned' the 4ec games to their own devices.  The 4ec side of d&d will no longer benefit from system fixes or newly released crunch/fluff articles which is what galls some people.

These strawman arguments about the death of 4e really need to stop. It makes me think of Chicken Little every time I hear these arguments raised.

What's worse, is that these arguments completely ignore any (and all) evidence to the contrary, including (but not limited to):


  • Developer Podcasts, Rule of Three, Insider articles, etc.

  • Heroes of Shadow compatibility with pre-E material, esp. in the event that Essentials material is excluded from the table (its no accident that people have jokingly referred to HoS as Arcane Power 2).


Whether you like or dislike the direction 4E has taken post-Essentials, is a matter of personal preference. What I can't understand is why people (on both sides of the fence) call the opinions of the other side wrong!

An opinion (by definition), is highly subjective and therefore - cannot possibly be wrong. What Im trying to understand is why people feel the need to convince others that their opinion is better than a different one.

The argument is as rediculous as arguing whether Vanilla or Rocky Road is superior..... Its entirely subjective, and while Im sad that Vanilla (Essentials) with Sprinkles (4e) is now the default flavour, Im not anywhere near as choked up about it as some people are.

In fact, I would prefer a Vanilla & Sprinkles approach far better than one in which the preferences of one side (or the other) are completely ignored.



Kalani, I never said who was right or wrong on this endless debate; or worse said that one side is better than the other.  I agree that it is simply a matter of preference on the part of the individual.  I was simply trying to state that the reasons those that don't like the new direction of 4e might feel that way.  I've seen lots of commentary from posters who do like where 4e is going.

We're all gaming nerds here to one degree or another; it's all good.  I do not believe, however, that these arguements are 'strawmen' as you pointed out above, "Nobody is forcing you to use Essentials material, but should you wish to exclude such content, you will need to accept the fact that your games will have little in the way of new content... "  Someone who doesn't want to play 4ee is stuck when it comes to new material and would be justifiably irritated.  

I do agree, however, that continued railing against these developments is pointless.  Make peace with what's come before, upcoming, and play the game with friends as you all want to play it.  That's all d&d is; a game that lets us explore our love of fantasy & be the heroes we've always dreamed of being.

Kato

PS - Gotta say that I disagree with your heretical opinion regarding ice cream.  Obviously the better choice is Rocky Road with Jimmies (chocolate sprinkles for those not in the know).  Wink

I'm disappointed there weren't more feats.
So, this was WotCs chance to make Essentials and 4e more compatible.  To prove that Knights weren't supposed to replace Guardian Fighters, and that future support for Essentials was, indeed, going to be useful to pre-E classes going forward.

What do we get?  Feat taxes.  Big ones.  (What federal feat-budget-deficit are they trying to close here?) 

First off, six of these feats are for the nearly pointless purpose of making features of the already highly-compatible Mage and Warpriest available to Wizards (Arcanists?) and Clerics (Templars?!?!).  Huh?  So, a Wizard could spend three feats, turn in his Implement Mastery, and get a School.  Now, how is that Wizard different from a Mage?  Well, he still doesn't get to pick Suggestion, still doesn't get Magic Missle for free, still has Ritual Caster, and still has Prestidigitation.   Otherwise, he's a Mage.   Or, you could just play a Mage and take Ritual Caster.  That's one Feat instead of thee, you're up Suggestion & Magic Missle, and only out Prestidigitation and the cost of a few Rituals.  Hm.  Hey, maybe you'd want to play a Mage and pay your feat taxes to get Implement Mastery?  No can do, the trade is one-way.   The Cleric/Warpriest feat tax looks similar, 3 feats and loss of Healer's Lore to get the non-power features of a Domain.   It's also one-way.  The result is a Warpriest-like-Cleric who retains Turn Undead, though, so, while the cost is high, the benefit isn't as poor as what the Wizard gets.  (Of course, that assumes that Turn Undead isn't hit with the same nerf bat that tagged Pelor's Radiance.)

The Theif and Rogue get a more reasonable feat tax.  One feat, for the privilege of trading Backstab for an Encounter power or vice-versa.  Not terrible.  Backstab /is/ a +3 to hit.  There are a lot of good Rogue Encounter powers.  Pretty obvious, and pretty nearly an even trade, really - I'm sure plenty of DMs were already allowing this.  Except for the Feat Tax.  And the fact there's no language allowing you to take the feat more than once.  So, a Theif can only ever learn one Rogue power.  And, the nagging problem that Backstab works with Basic Attacks, so the Rogue will have to take a second feat, Melee Training, to be not quite as good with it as the Theif.  Backstab does do more damage as you gain levels, though, so a Rogue can trade in his lowest-level power for it, and watch it get a little better over time.

The Kinght/Slayer and Fighter have a similar arrangement.  For a feat cost, the Knight/Slayer can trade a Power Strike for one Fighter Encounter power, once.  Similarly, the Fighter can trade in an Encounter for Power Strike.  Like Backstab, Power Strike gets better with level, unlike Backstab, it isn't just damage, there are other class features involved.  The upshot.  The Knight/Slayer pays one feat to get a top-level encounter power (up to his own level) in exchange for 1 use of Power Strike.  The Fighter pays 2 feats to get a level-apropriate Power Strike in exchange for one of his Encounter powers.


What do we NOT get?  Ways to trade powers or features /within the same class/ without a feat tax.  Any way for a Slayer, Knight, or Theif to get a daily.  Any way for a Rogue or Fighter to get a Trick or at-will Stance.  



One note:  Mages can choose Prestidigitation as one of their 3 Cantrips.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

One note:  Mages can choose Prestidigitation as one of their 3 Cantrips.

Are you sure? It's absent from HotFL and not a leveled power.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

One note:  Mages can choose Prestidigitation as one of their 3 Cantrips.

Are you sure? It's absent from HotFL and not a leveled power.




Eh? Prestidigitation certainly appears in my copy of HotFL.
It appears in my copy of the book as well.  And in the Character Builder, and in the D&D Insider Compendium.  It was, however, missing from the Red Box

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Rd Box, must be where I got the impression... or maybe a preview?   I just checked my copy from the Compendium, and, yep, there it was. 

Oh, well, just one /less/ thing the Wizard has going for it relative to the Mage.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Sign In to post comments