|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:07PM
#21
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
Why are we minimizing cherry-picking? I thought the whole point of allowing people to make their own specialties was to encourage cherry-picking.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:33PM
#22
|
|
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
It's a capstone feat. You can't "cherry pick" something when you only get one of a particular resource, that's total nonsense. I it already holds significant oportunity cost, since you can't take other 9th level feats, there's no reason for it to require more than that.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:52PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2013
|
Disengage is an action, you cannot attack in the same round you disengage.
Withdraw is not an action described in the current iteration of the playtest.
The Shift feat allows you to move out of an opponent's reach for the purposes of gaining a clear shot, because opponent's provide cover if you attempt to shoot or reach-jab at a target on the opposite side of them.
All well and good. How is that relevant to my character using a non-reach non-ranged weapon, and why is this feat required for me to use said weapon to Strike and Fade?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 5:03PM
#24
|
|
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
Why are we minimizing cherry-picking? I thought the whole point of allowing people to make their own specialties was to encourage cherry-picking.
I think the whole point is to let people select feats that best fit their character's "specialty" even when that specialty isn't one of the pre-packaged ones listed.
It's a capstone feat. You can't "cherry pick" something when you only get one of a particular resource, that's total nonsense. I it already holds significant oportunity cost, since you can't take other 9th level feats, there's no reason for it to require more than that.
Specifically, if you could take Strike and Fade without taking Shift first, then players would be incentivized to skip Shift or retrain out of it once you get S&F.
Honestly, I haven't tried a character with either of these feats, so I'll defer to those who have on this one. There are certainly some other prerequisites that seem silly to me, like Two-Weapon Strike - why would I want a big weapon in my off-hand to use this ability?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 5:28PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2013
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
Why are we minimizing cherry-picking? I thought the whole point of allowing people to make their own specialties was to encourage cherry-picking.
I think the whole point is to let people select feats that best fit their character's "specialty" even when that specialty isn't one of the pre-packaged ones listed.
It's a capstone feat. You can't "cherry pick" something when you only get one of a particular resource, that's total nonsense. I it already holds significant oportunity cost, since you can't take other 9th level feats, there's no reason for it to require more than that.
Specifically, if you could take Strike and Fade without taking Shift first, then players would be incentivized to skip Shift or retrain out of it once you get S&F.
Honestly, I haven't tried a character with either of these feats, so I'll defer to those who have on this one. There are certainly some other prerequisites that seem silly to me, like Two-Weapon Strike - why would I want a big weapon in my off-hand to use this ability?
Specifically, if you could take Strike and Fade without taking Shift first, then players would be incentivized to skip Shift or retrain out of it once you get S&F.
-------------------
I think the designers should have an incentive to design a better feat. If the whole purpose is "nobody would take this feat if it wasn't a pre-req for a much Much MUCH better one" is that good game design?
I think the object should be for each player to look at the feats, read one and say "that's the best one." then read the next and say "that's the best one" and so on. They should all be useful, and none of them should feel like a "tax".
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 5:37PM
#26
|
|
|
I think the designers should have an incentive to design a better feat. If the whole purpose is "nobody would take this feat if it wasn't a pre-req for a much Much MUCH better one" is that good game design?
Well, the level 9 feats are clearly designed to be a cut above other feats. Shift actually doesn't look like a terrible feat to me - it's the only way to get out of melee range from somebody without using your action. Certainly better than, say, Weapon Focus.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 6:35PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
Why are we minimizing cherry-picking? I thought the whole point of allowing people to make their own specialties was to encourage cherry-picking.
I think the whole point is to let people select feats that best fit their character's "specialty" even when that specialty isn't one of the pre-packaged ones listed.
It's a capstone feat. You can't "cherry pick" something when you only get one of a particular resource, that's total nonsense. I it already holds significant oportunity cost, since you can't take other 9th level feats, there's no reason for it to require more than that.
Specifically, if you could take Strike and Fade without taking Shift first, then players would be incentivized to skip Shift or retrain out of it once you get S&F.
If true - this doesn't mean that Shift should be a prerequisite. It means that shift isn't good enough to hold up on its own through all levels of play.
The problem then is with shift - not with the fact that it is a prerequisite.
Maybe shift needs to scale with the level of the character. If characters are only taking Shift so they can take Strike and Fade later - shift isn't good enough. If characters are taking Shift early on because it is useful then - but are training out of it at ninth - shift isn't scaling well enough.
The problem is then with Shift, not Strike and Fade (although I still think that shift as a prerequisite is a bad idea and the level requirement is sufficient).
Proposal: What if we just make them the same feat? If you take the feat "Combat Mobility" you gain the ability to "Shift". If you reach level nine, you also gain the ability to "Strike and Fade" (with maybe some other scaling benefit at levels 5 ("spring attack?' and 15 or so?)
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 8:18PM
#28
|
|
|
I'd be more inclined to just make Shift a base line ability and have it not use a Feat slot at all. As it stands it is totally a Feat Tax.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 8:36PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I'd be more inclined to just make Shift a base line ability and have it not use a Feat slot at all. As it stands it is totally a Feat Tax.
It is not a feat tax outside of its need as a prerequisite.
It is not essential and most characters will not take it.
Therefore it is not a feat tax. It is just something you are used to being able to do and cannot do as well under the current rules - although you can move more freely without shift than you could before (without shift) - as you can run circles around your targets just so long as you don't try to leave their reach.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 8:45PM
#30
|
|
|
I'd be more inclined to just make Shift a base line ability and have it not use a Feat slot at all. As it stands it is totally a Feat Tax.
It is not a feat tax outside of its need as a prerequisite.
It is just something you are used to being able to do and cannot do as well under the current rules - although you can move more freely without shift than you could before (without shift) - as you can run circles around your targets just so long as you don't try to leave their reach.
Carl
It is something that was standard in previous editions. I'm not a big fan of removing abilities from the game and making them into Feats or Class skills.
I'm not a big fan of level, stat, or Feat being used as a prerequisite for a Feat. I can see the need in a few places, TWF chains in particular. But wherever possible, I'd like to see Feats being available to all regardless of other Feats, stats, or level.
|
|
|
