|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 8:54PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Attribute reqs or previous feat reqs is a fine concept. Just like the choice of a fighter will stop you from casting arcane spells without the cost of multi-classing (whatever that may be) some feats require a cost and even if the particular cost may be disagreeable to some, the concept of such works for me.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 9:01PM
#32
|
|
|
Attribute reqs or previous feat reqs is a fine concept. Just like the choice of a fighter will stop you from casting arcane spells without the cost of multi-classing (whatever that may be) some feats require a cost and even if the particular cost may be disagreeable to some, the concept of such works for me.
I see them as a crutch used to hide poor game balance. In a well designed game there should be no need for them, and I'd rather see that superior design than unneeded limitations.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 9:04PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Attribute reqs or previous feat reqs is a fine concept. Just like the choice of a fighter will stop you from casting arcane spells without the cost of multi-classing (whatever that may be) some feats require a cost and even if the particular cost may be disagreeable to some, the concept of such works for me.
I see them as a crutch used to hide poor game balance. In a well designed game there should be no need for them, and I'd rather see that superior design than unneeded limitations.
If everything were feats instead of class features would a feat chain make sense then? Like Arcane Casting 9 (req int 13, Arcane Casting 8) allows one to cast level 9 arcane spells? Would that be a concept that was automatically poor design?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 9:13PM
#34
|
|
|
Attribute reqs or previous feat reqs is a fine concept. Just like the choice of a fighter will stop you from casting arcane spells without the cost of multi-classing (whatever that may be) some feats require a cost and even if the particular cost may be disagreeable to some, the concept of such works for me.
I see them as a crutch used to hide poor game balance. In a well designed game there should be no need for them, and I'd rather see that superior design than unneeded limitations.
If everything were feats instead of class features would a feat chain make sense then? Like Arcane Casting 9 (req int 13, Arcane Casting 8) allows one to cast level 9 arcane spells? Would that be a concept that was automatically poor design?
Yes and no. As long as Class Feats (or in the case of a classless system, some other name like Role Feats or Caste Feats was used) were kept separate from General Feats and the chained Feats limited to Class Feats, that would be fine. If everything were Feats, I'd hope they weren't all the same kind of Feats.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 10:15PM
#35
|
|
|
I think that part of the issue here is the use of the term "feat tax" versus "feat trees". As far as I can understand (at least within the context of 4E), "feat tax" involves feats that are so good (or seemingly vital to the game's math) that the loss of those feats from your feat lists would severely hamper your functionality as a character. Compare with "feat trees", where more powerful feats are unlocked only if you have a specific set of prerequisite feats. Aside from system-level feat tax, there's also conceptual feat tax, wherein to fully realize a character concept one must pay the required tax in feats. 5E sort of softened this by lessening the number of feat slots available and at the same time making feats optional, but it still doesn't pull away from the basic flaw of feat trees, especially feat trees where the high end feats are significantly stronger than low end feats: instead of looking at feats individually, you have to look at feats as a group, and plan your character from level 1 to level 20; I think 3E had it worst (see: extreme multiclassing shenanigans) and 4E somewhat mitigated this via retraining and the absence of feat trees (mostly). And it's because of this "must take all required feats" that A) heavily restricted the pre-4E fighter options-wise, and B) makes it easier to criticize a feat as "feat tax", especially that of a conceptual sort of feat tax, since you don't really like a certain feat, but because you can't take the feat you really want, you're stuck with taking that feat anyway. Personally I think it's a really messy way to implement it, since there's already far too many constraints already in place:
- all of the more powerful feats have level prerequisites
- a significant number of feats have ability prerequisites
- then you have feats that have feat prerequisites
So the conceptual tax is extremely high, since not only do you have to roll lucky / convince the DM to let you use an array or point buy, but you also have to take the prerequisite feats... and even then, you only get the concept you want after having to invest a significant amount of time and effort (and system mastery) in the game. Personally I found that, save for certain powers (e.g. Come and Get It, Exorcism of Steel), most concepts in 4E could be achieved at level 1, with a relatively low concept tax, mainly limited to tier, ability scores and the resistance to reflavoring (or lack thereof). And while I think that 5E's background/skill system combined with ability scores does help lower the concept tax outside of combat, it's offset by A) the Rogue's Skill Mastery and Ace in the Hole class features, and B) differences in feat design vs. class design.
- With the Rogue's Skill Mastery, not only do you have spells being better outside of combat from time to time, you have the Rogue being outright better than almost all other characters in skill use so long as those skills are applicable.
- Plus, the entire design of the Rogue sort of steps into the Bard's "Jack of All Trades" concept, especially given how skills work.
- And with feats vs. class, the problem is that technically classes are already specializations, so as it stands feats are redundant in existence; add to that, they don't even follow the same rules as maneuvers or spells, so it's another set of rules to master.
|
|
|
