I agree that NEXT while a bold idea, should have been a continuation of 4th edition (as much as it pains me to say being my least favorite edition of D&D). I think conceptually they had a lot of good ideas and 4th edition is a far closer representation of the original vision of D&D (1st edition) than anything that followed. 2nd edition while more advanced and certainly better written to me felt it started to stretch to a place where ultimatly 3rd edition landed, simultaion land and while I do appriciate a bit of simulation in my games, its very "un-D&D" like.
That said i would definitly change certain things.
1. Completly eliminate healing surges. Of all the hokie and inexplicabily lame things to add to a game, this was the worse.
2. Bring back "mortality" of characters. 4th edition is just on easy mode for the players. Its a rigged system designed to ensure players always win and with the threat of danger missing from the game, many of the motifs of adventuring where non existant. Players where overly confident and bold. Ultimatly they had good reason to be, because in 4th edition they where borderline gods, worst part about it is that it was really hard to fix.
3. Create a proper magic system. It doesn't have to be vatican, but it should function on a premise that gives it proper mystic. In 4th edition magic, martial powers and utility powers where virtualy indistinguishable from each other. Half the time when a player fired off a Daily I had to ask him if it was a magic attack or something else because it was impossible to tell the difference and often even the power itself didn't say one way or the other.
4. eliminate henchmen. This was a stupid concept. If you want weaker opponents, make weaker opponents, these where lack luster and pointless.
5. Speed up combat and get away from "encounter" driven design in adventure writing and get back to more traditional "dungeons and dragons classic design" (see Temple Of Elemental Evil for what Im talking about) and dump the nescessity for miniatures. Above all else decrease the book keeping, without question the hardest role-playing game ever made to track conditions, effects and all that stuff. Even worse than a 20th level 3rd edition campaign and it becomes a problem as early as 4th level.
6. Last but not least, write better. The Players Handbook for 4th edition may be the worst role-playing book ever written. Uninspiring, stale and just out right boring. Thankfully the DM Guide was an improvement, but the Players Handbook is the selling point of a system and to this day I have never managed to get through it, it just makes my eyes bleed how bad the writing is.
That said i would definitly change certain things.
You do realize the title of the thread starts with "4e Fans", right?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
1. Completly eliminate healing surges. Of all the hokie and inexplicabily lame things to add to a game, this was the worse.
2. Bring back "mortality" of characters. 4th edition is just on easy mode for the players. Its a rigged system designed to ensure players always win and with the threat of danger missing from the game, many of the motifs of adventuring where non existant. Players where overly confident and bold. Ultimatly they had good reason to be, because in 4th edition they where borderline gods, worst part about it is that it was really hard to fix.
1. So I suppose you'd rather go for "recover hit points equal to half the damage you took this fight" or "all the damage goes away at the end of a fight" instead of a limited resource like healing surges, which makes more sense as actual vitality? Or is wands of cure light wounds or bags of healing potions more appropriate?
[ Recovering all healing surges instantly at the end of an extended rest is the more likely game breaker here. I'd say they should've granted an alternative where healing surges were recovered at a slower rate, instead of everything in one extended rest. ]
2. I dunno. Ask my 4E players if they felt that the system was on easy mode, and depending on party composition they'd probably either look at you in disbelief or nod in agreement. It was harder to kill them using the written guidelines, true -- at least prior to the errata to the DMG post MM3 -- but nothing in the rules said that you had to make encounters easy or balanced. Unless you were playing in LFR, but even then I've been making good use of the loopholes in MYRE and making pretty deadly encounters.
It's them healers, I reckon. Especially leaders who either handle damage so well that it never really becomes a problem, or who enhance damage so much that threats never stay around for too long.
3. Create a proper magic system. It doesn't have to be vatican, but it should function on a premise that gives it proper mystic. In 4th edition magic, martial powers and utility powers where virtualy indistinguishable from each other. Half the time when a player fired off a Daily I had to ask him if it was a magic attack or something else because it was impossible to tell the difference and often even the power itself didn't say one way or the other.
Reading the second line of the power -- the fluff -- might've helped, I dunno. Never had a problem with defining what's magic and what's not: if you swing a sword and none of 'em flashy things happen, it's normal. Anything magic was usually show-off-y and what not, with typical colors and special effects and what not. If the utility said "you draw upon your inner reserves and redouble your efforts" I'd say that it's possibly psionic but most likely martial, whereas if it had stuff like "you call upon the dark depths of Shambala and a black hole appears. Out of it comes the slithering tentacles of what could be a servant of C'thulu" it's very, very unlikely that it'd be mundane.
Magic hasn't exactly been well-defined these past millenia anyway, outside of "if it's not doable by normal folk, it's magic" (which sort of makes technology a form of magic).
[ Oh and when you really think about it, format is the only reason why D&D Next spells doesn't look like 4E powers, as the extensive fluff is there in both 4E and Next, although 4E power mechanics are much more cleanly laid out IMHO. ]
4. eliminate henchmen. This was a stupid concept. If you want weaker opponents, make weaker opponents, these where lack luster and pointless.
Actually, I'd say that it was a stroke of genius, and a precursor to the Bounded Accuracy: they were frail, but not so weak as to render them not worthy of attention -- especially if, at level 1, you're taking 12 damage per round from four minions, and you're not in a position to retaliate -- allowing for greater cinematic effect while not outright dismissing them as threats unless the party was explicitly designed for minion-sweeping at-will (or the minions were really that weak in the first place). Heck, they should've just thrown out the rolled damage bit and just had static damage for monsters so that the DM didn't have to roll so many dice. But hey, tradition *shrugs*.
I've personally experienced the "if you want weaker opponents, make weaker opponents" that one time I played Star Wars: Saga Edition with my regular group (someone else was DMing). It was boring, no matter how you look at it: too many hit points, too low a chance to hit PCs (making it seem like a chore to even bother rolling), and took a very specific rule in SWSE to make them even mildly a threat to the group.
EDIT: I do have to note that even the DMG2 suggestions on minion damage were too low, and have come up with my own formula to making them stay threatening throughout the game. Let's just say that it's made the lives of my players... interesting.
5. Speed up combat and get away from "encounter" driven design in adventure writing and get back to more traditional "dungeons and dragons classic design" (see Temple Of Elemental Evil for what Im talking about) and dump the nescessity for miniatures. Above all else decrease the book keeping, without question the hardest role-playing game ever made to track conditions, effects and all that stuff. Even worse than a 20th level 3rd edition campaign and it becomes a problem as early as 4th level.
Encounter-driven design in adventure writing yes they were too restrictive on that. However, it was a great shorthand method of dealing with unexpected combat encounters.
The bookkeeping was a bit unnecessary yes, but from my experience it happened around 17th level, not 4th level. Then again, save ends and until end of turn stuff in our group weren't that common, so that's a given I guess.
6. Last but not least, write better. The Players Handbook for 4th edition may be the worst role-playing book ever written. Uninspiring, stale and just out right boring. Thankfully the DM Guide was an improvement, but the Players Handbook is the selling point of a system and to this day I have never managed to get through it, it just makes my eyes bleed how bad the writing is.
I dunno. PHB could have been improved on the fluff side, but it was passable for me in terms of fluff and it still is a great reference material, at least when compared to having to sift through a ton of spells -- most of which weren't even related to the class I was bothering with -- that D&D Next's current playtest has.
[ In fact, I think they actually decided to listen to those who kept whining about forcing the DM to keep referencing to the same spell list as players, because the latest Bestiary actually placed the spells in the monster entries, and not just referencing it. ]
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Posting as someone who actualy liked 4E I don't have manny complaints, in fact they are as follows:
Cutting the aligment grid was stupid, yes I know it generated countless moral and ethical complaints, but cutting CG and LE for example and condensing them just felt that you were givving up and weren't even brave enough to end it completely
Cutting it's mechanical effect was something I 100% support but why half ass the flufff?
No Martial Controller, I personally didn't want it but a lot of people did I think it was avoided to not fuel the "Martial powers = Magic" but honestly people were going to rage whatever you did so you might as well put out a class for people who wanted a all Martial party.
Shadow as a secondary power source it might have been due to Essentials but I find the implementation of the Shadow Powersource again really half-assed
I would reduce the 1/2 level bonus to 1/5 level. Remove the +'s from magic items. Reduce the number of powers everyone has. Say... 2 at-wills, 2 enounters, 2 dailies (replacing as you level). More variety of power structure, and sub-classes for power sharing (Which happened, but late in 4e). Utility powers should actually be utility(non-combat) powers, not defensive powers. Reduce prerequisits (and redundancy) of feats, by allowing them to work in more situations. *Rebalance monsters with the new expectations.
The other main issue people had with 4e was presentation. Doesn't bother me much, but alot of people where turned off before they actually played the game simply because it "looked like WoW" or something.
To add to this... I like the way 5e handles stealth better.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Posting as someone who actualy liked 4E I don't have manny complaints, in fact they are as follows:
Cutting the aligment grid was stupid, yes I know it generated countless moral and ethical complaints, but cutting CG and LE for example and condensing them just felt that you were givving up and weren't even brave enough to end it completely
Cutting it's mechanical effect was something I 100% support but why half ass the flufff?
No Martial Controller, I personally didn't want it but a lot of people did I think it was avoided to not fuel the "Martial powers = Magic" but honestly people were going to rage whatever you did so you might as well put out a class for people who wanted a all Martial party.
Shadow as a secondary power source it might have been due to Essentials but I find the implementation of the Shadow Powersource again really half-assed
I didn't really have a problem with the change in the alignment system, although if I really wanted to keep alignments as close to 1E/2E as possible I would've just grouped all the neutrals to Unaligned and left the rest as is.
Fighters and rangers seem close enough to fit the bill of martial controller, I dunno *shrugs* But shadow really should've been introduced in the PHB as a corrupted form of magic, making the Warlock a better candidate for the Shadow power source than anything, and when Nethermancy and Necromancy gets involved it should make the Mage or Wizard have Shadow and Arcane as their power source. As is, yeah it sorta blows that the Assassin was too lackluster compared to its predecessors and not much was done to improve the image of the Shadow power source...
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I'm a huge fan of 4e. I like it at a structural level, and by that I mean I like the fundamental design choices of the edition. The priority towards balance, the unified progression (in itself an extension of the balance goal), the keyword-based design, etc.
...
So those are my primary changes. I can think up more, but most anything more is tied to one of those 5 issues at their core. Change those 7 things, and I imagine 99% of my other issues with 4e vanish.
I agree with this - the fundamental base of 4th ed is great, with a few of the clumsy elements eliminated or rethought, it would have been even better. I think these ideas would be a great place to start.
Haven't read the whole thread, but IMHO, what need to change 4e for better:
Remove the +X weapon/armor/necklaces. When you get a sword that burst into flames, you should keep it because it burst into flames, not because it adds +2 to your attack and damage. Keep the level-based stuff based on the wielder level, and nothing else (eg, that flaming sword deal 5 ongoing damage at level 1, but 15 ongoing damage at level 23)
Remove ALL types of permanent mathematical bonus from items. This includes "+2 damage bracers", "+2 speed boots" and "+2 initiative goggles". Items that have a permanent bonus usually are much better than situational items, thus lowering the value of the latter.
Remove the ability raise as you level. Ok, maybe not all. Getting +1/+2 to all your stats when you go up a tier is still nice, but picking specific abilities to raise while you level up only have the problem of turning at least one of your defenses useless, and screw up with the skill system. Which reminds me...
Rewrite the skill system into something better. 4e skill sbreak after level 14. If you don't train whatever your main stats are, you don't hake any medium DC checks anymore. I dont like the fully nitpicking of 3e system, but 4e system need work.
Remove feat taxes. If the math is broken, solve it at the leveling table. Don't force everyone to spend a feat only to stay in the same place.
There are more stuff, but mostly nitpicking (like how essential changed the presentation of classes and such). Those 5 points are the great game-changers for me that would made 4e even more awesome.
There are really three types of feats, in my opinion. My ratings are based on how much they add flavorwise to your character:
Feats that you pick because they fit your character: For instance, Jack of All Trades, Disciple of Lore, Skill Focus, Potent Restorables. In my game, my Artificer studied healing and magic extensively. He had a strong belief that while it wasn't possible to be the best at everything, it was important to understand a bit of everything. These feats didn't add any more opportunity to roleplay; they reinforced the ideas already presented with mechanics to back them up.
Feats that you pick because they represent what your character is becoming:For instance, Multiclass feats, White Lotus Evasion. My rogue is taking a Warden multiclass; representing him overcoming his fears of primal spirits. My artificer is taking White Lotus Evasion, because it represents him returning to his elven roots. These feats accompany adding ideas to your character, and add mechanics that allow these ideas to function where if they were missing, it would not.
Feats You Pick Because You Need Them Or Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus: For instance, Weapon Proficency, Arcane Implement Proficency, Expertise. If you need to take a feat in order either 1. Complete a reasonable archetype (Enchanter who fights with Sword and Spell) or 2. Meet the expectations that the group puts on you (ie; In order to play in this Super Optimized group, I need to have X otherwise I'm pulling the group down), then it fits this. On the same end, sometimes you're going to pick a feat because it makes combat more fun; not because it adds to your character in any way. Expanded critical hit range? Makes the game more fun; but other than "My character got better", there's not much to it.
I would say that general feats often fall more often into the "Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus" column. There's exceptions of course (Skill Power), but that's generally how I perceive things.
My DDI subscription is renewed. I really missed the compendium on my table.
Haven't read the whole thread, but IMHO, what need to change 4e for better:
Remove the +X weapon/armor/necklaces. When you get a sword that burst into flames, you should keep it because it burst into flames, not because it adds +2 to your attack and damage. Keep the level-based stuff based on the wielder level, and nothing else (eg, that flaming sword deal 5 ongoing damage at level 1, but 15 ongoing damage at level 23)
Remove ALL types of permanent mathematical bonus from items. This includes "+2 damage bracers", "+2 speed boots" and "+2 initiative goggles". Items that have a permanent bonus usually are much better than situational items, thus lowering the value of the latter.
Remove the ability raise as you level. Ok, maybe not all. Getting +1/+2 to all your stats when you go up a tier is still nice, but picking specific abilities to raise while you level up only have the problem of turning at least one of your defenses useless, and screw up with the skill system. Which reminds me...
Rewrite the skill system into something better. 4e skill sbreak after level 14. If you don't train whatever your main stats are, you don't hake any medium DC checks anymore. I dont like the fully nitpicking of 3e system, but 4e system need work.
Remove feat taxes. If the math is broken, solve it at the leveling table. Don't force everyone to spend a feat only to stay in the same place.
There are more stuff, but mostly nitpicking (like how essential changed the presentation of classes and such). Those 5 points are the great game-changers for me that would made 4e even more awesome.
You know, all of a sudden I'm tempted to try and run even just a one-shot campaign where everybody starts with mundane equipment at level 24 and I throw at them level-appropriate encounters (maybe to compensate I'll use lower level enemies from time to time), and see just how bad the math issue really is. Because I do remember two things: 1. someone did the math, with leader bonuses taken into account, and found that expertise feats were absolutely unnecessary when PHB-only stuff were considered 2. I did some calculations and found that, with Expertise, +6 equipment, leader bonuses etc. you could live on an 8 in your primary stat.
So I wonder: if I ran a one shot with no magical items and no Expertise feats, would a level 28 party fighting a group of level 28 opponents really be considered suicidal?
Math-wise and assuming 16 on the starting primary post-racial, then raising the primary stat at every point, that's a primary stat of 24 or a bonus of +21 to hit (let's have Maul instead of Longsword).
Level 28 opponents have at least 40 to defenses, 42 to AC.
That means that most of your attacks would need a 19 to hit, correct?
Now let's see: they could flank for sure (17 to hit), then a Warlord could utilize Furious Smash (15 to hit) to give an ally a bonus to hit equal to his Charisma modifier (let's assume 24 to CHA, or a +7 to hit, which lowers the target number to a 10 to hit). A Cleric could utilize Lance of Faith to give an ally a +2 to hit, and Righteous Brand can give a +3 to hit instead. Pretty hard to work their way in with these though.
Rogues and Fighters could easily get a 15 to hit base with a +3 to hit weapon and +1 to hit with said weapon, and Fighters have powers that grant him at least +2 to hit, while Rogues have Piercing Strike, lowering the to-hit to 13. Wizards have effect spells like Magic Missile and (in some ways) Cloud of Daggers. Accuracy wouldn't be as much a problem for them, especially when Wand of Accuracy or Orb of Deception is utilized.
Aid Another would be a bit more worthwhile an action, especially when trying to ensure that the leader that's supposed to grant bonuses to hit has a rather low chance of hitting otherwise.
Feats and paragon paths that grant situational bonus to hit and/or half damage or alternate effects on a miss would become quite valuable, as well as powers that let you heal off the damage that you're sure to receive. The battle would be really hard if you don't play your cards right, but it's not unwinnable outright.
Conclusion: I think the main reason why the treadmill on magic items and stats exist is because there's an expectation to hit 50% of the time in a reliable manner. The devs should've pointed out that their math expectations included inter-ally cooperation, instead of publishing the Expertise feats as math fixes.
I do believe that it's pretty common in the CharOp boards of 4E to achieve 95% to hit even without leader bonus to hit, and LFR frequently tosses in enemies that are higher enough in level to mitigate the differences in attack and defense of players and monsters, so taking out 45% of that [by removing expertise and +6 equipment] and possibly adding it back in via leader bonuses should be quite doable, although not getting armor and neck items might be a different thing altogether, especially with the new damage table.
Oh well, that's history for you *shrugs*
NOTE: I suppose cutting HP at high levels by at least 25% -- likely 50% -- would be a fine recommendation to allow high level play without magic items, although designing the campaign so that enemies are a number of levels lower equal to the number of bonuses to hit you're expected to get (e.g. if with Expertise is +1 and you're expected to have a +2 weapon at that point, the highest level an opponent would be is 3 levels lower than you) is a decent alternative, as you cut down on the number crunching.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
You know, all of a sudden I'm tempted to try and run even just a one-shot campaign where everybody starts with mundane equipment at level 24 and I throw at them level-appropriate encounters (maybe to compensate I'll use lower level enemies from time to time), and see just how bad the math issue really is. Because I do remember two things: 1. someone did the math, with leader bonuses taken into account, and found that expertise feats were absolutely unnecessary when PHB-only stuff were considered 2. I did some calculations and found that, with Expertise, +6 equipment, leader bonuses etc. you could live on an 8 in your primary stat.
So I wonder: if I ran a one shot with no magical items and no Expertise feats, would a level 28 party fighting a group of level 28 opponents really be considered suicidal?
While Expertise is the poster boy of the feat taxes, its not the only one I'm thinking of. I include things like Improved Defenses, Superior Weapon/Armor/Implement Proficiency, Improved Initiative (and Superior Initiative), Hybrid Talent, Versatile Master, etc.
There are really three types of feats, in my opinion. My ratings are based on how much they add flavorwise to your character:
Feats that you pick because they fit your character: For instance, Jack of All Trades, Disciple of Lore, Skill Focus, Potent Restorables. In my game, my Artificer studied healing and magic extensively. He had a strong belief that while it wasn't possible to be the best at everything, it was important to understand a bit of everything. These feats didn't add any more opportunity to roleplay; they reinforced the ideas already presented with mechanics to back them up.
Feats that you pick because they represent what your character is becoming:For instance, Multiclass feats, White Lotus Evasion. My rogue is taking a Warden multiclass; representing him overcoming his fears of primal spirits. My artificer is taking White Lotus Evasion, because it represents him returning to his elven roots. These feats accompany adding ideas to your character, and add mechanics that allow these ideas to function where if they were missing, it would not.
Feats You Pick Because You Need Them Or Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus: For instance, Weapon Proficency, Arcane Implement Proficency, Expertise. If you need to take a feat in order either 1. Complete a reasonable archetype (Enchanter who fights with Sword and Spell) or 2. Meet the expectations that the group puts on you (ie; In order to play in this Super Optimized group, I need to have X otherwise I'm pulling the group down), then it fits this. On the same end, sometimes you're going to pick a feat because it makes combat more fun; not because it adds to your character in any way. Expanded critical hit range? Makes the game more fun; but other than "My character got better", there's not much to it.
I would say that general feats often fall more often into the "Solely Because of a Mechanical Bonus" column. There's exceptions of course (Skill Power), but that's generally how I perceive things.
My DDI subscription is renewed. I really missed the compendium on my table.
