# Obsolete Feats



## TDarien (Jan 1, 2011)

With over 3000 feats in the 4e catalog and the vast amount of compiled errata.  Slogging though the list of available options can be quite cumbersome, especially when errata, and to some extent essentials feats, have rendered certain feats obsolete.  Has anyone taken the time to compile a list of these now sub-standard feats to help prevent players unknowingly taking an obsolete feat instead of a similar, though better, one?


----------



## aurance (Jan 1, 2011)

I don't think so, other than some of the (excellent) player-made class handbooks in the WotC CharOp forums. It would be nice, but I'm not sure it would be entirely necessary - it's pretty hard to shoot yourself in the foot in 4e as long as you put your 18 post-racial score in your main ability score for your class and keep updated with gear. For my players, I figure if they want to do the research for the feats, they can go to the forum resources, but if they don't, it won't affect them too badly.


----------



## ourchair (Jan 1, 2011)

aurance said:


> I don't think so, other than some of the (excellent) player-made class handbooks in the WotC CharOp forums. It would be nice, but I'm not sure it would be entirely necessary - it's pretty hard to shoot yourself in the foot in 4e as long as you put your 18 post-racial score in your main ability score for your class and keep updated with gear. For my players, I figure if they want to do the research for the feats, they can go to the forum resources, but if they don't, it won't affect them too badly.



That just about sums it up pretty well.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 1, 2011)

Eh, I think it would be kind of nice if CB could deprecate feats that are obsolete. If you want them you can turn them on, otherwise they don't show up in the pick lists by default. Shouldn't really be that tough.


----------



## Destil (Jan 1, 2011)

From a performance standpoint, this is really something that *needs* to be done. Picking feats is absolutely horrid, the option to turn them off entirely (and not include the huge XML that goes back and forth with them) would improve it a lot.

There's also a *lot* of obsolete feats after the Essentials, given the amount of power creep (plenty of stuff that's downright better *and *has less strict prerequisites).


----------



## ourchair (Jan 1, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Eh, I think it would be kind of nice if CB could deprecate feats that are obsolete. If you want them you can turn them on, otherwise they don't show up in the pick lists by default. Shouldn't really be that tough.



I agree and disagree.

It would be great for us not to ever see obsolete feats show up again, even if only by a filter. 

The problem is that it would require someone to actually go through the all feats and make thousands of judgment calls on which feats are obsolete and which ones are not (as even non-mathematical feats may be rendered moot).

Nevermind the fact that some of the 'obsolete' feats stack with newer feats, so there're people out there who might want old feats to go with their new feats, just so they can max out one aspect of their character ("Whoohoo I just stacked as many feats as possible to get +18 to my base AC at Level 11!") to ridiculous ends.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2011)

Considering that the new Expertise feats give the original bonus AND something else nice, I would say that any of the overlapping old versions are obsolete.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 1, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Considering that the new Expertise feats give the original bonus AND something else nice, I would say that any of the overlapping old versions are obsolete.



Sadly, we still need Totem, Ki Focus, Holy Symbol, and Flail expertise before those other Expertise feats can be deprecated.  And, preferably, a better expertise/focus solution for weapliments.

I'd say all the dual-element feats from PHB1 can go.  With Implement Focus, they're officially asinine choices except in corner cases where someone wants to use a bunch of different implements or something.

The Tribal feats are pretty awful, too - "Hey, if we ALL spend a feat slot on X, we can each get a bonus just barely better than taking (skill focus/improved initiative/etc)!"  I know those haven't been replaced by better alternatives, but I'd love to remove them for uselessness.

Human Perseverance can go away, unless it's errata'd to stack.

-O


----------



## Blue (Jan 1, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Eh, I think it would be kind of nice if CB could deprecate feats that are obsolete. If you want them you can turn them on, otherwise they don't show up in the pick lists by default. Shouldn't really be that tough.




I wish they would do an edition change to 4.5 where so they could take out the chaff.  That's what Essentials effectively was, but because of the "no edition change" promise they need to leave everything in and compatible.  

I think it's really hurting the game to have so much junk floating around. Especially with the rampant content addition from Dragon.  I'm not saying get rid of the old classes, but would you rather buy a book to update the new classes to Essentials format with no new content, or have an edition change where they could clean up and then have a book with with improved content?  The business plan for income stream still needs to include constant new material for sale, why not make it improved and cleaned up material?

Wizards has learned a lot about 4e since they first designed it, I'd love to see 4.5.  Yes, people would complain about having to by boos, but that's what Wizards needs you to do anyway.  More people concentrating buying fewer 4.5 core books means they can focus more time on those instead of on coming out with a lot of different books that will only get picked up by some percentage of gamers.


----------



## Destil (Jan 1, 2011)

Blue said:


> I think it's really hurting the game to have so much junk floating around. Especially with the rampant content addition from Dragon.




Dragon's not really the worst offender anymore, given the shear number of feats obsoleted in essentials (generally by purely superior feats and or those with easier prerequisites). But since it's pretty much purely digital I wouldn't shed a tear if all the worthless stuff therein was either brought in line (every at will with rare exception should deal 2x die damage at epic) or removed entirely if worthless.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2011)

Destil said:


> Dragon's not really the worst offender anymore, given the shear number of feats obsoleted in essentials (generally by purely superior feats and or those with easier prerequisites). But since it's pretty much purely digital I wouldn't shed a tear if all the worthless stuff therein was either brought in line (every at will with rare exception should deal 2x die damage at epic) or removed entirely if worthless.




Consider all of the feats that were pretty much designed as obsolete. Here: You can either have a feat bonus that's conditional, or the same feat bonus that's constant. Which do you want?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 1, 2011)

Blue said:


> I wish they would do an edition change to 4.5 where so they could take out the chaff.  That's what Essentials effectively was, but because of the "no edition change" promise they need to leave everything in and compatible.
> 
> I think it's really hurting the game to have so much junk floating around. Especially with the rampant content addition from Dragon.  I'm not saying get rid of the old classes, but would you rather buy a book to update the new classes to Essentials format with no new content, or have an edition change where they could clean up and then have a book with with improved content?  The business plan for income stream still needs to include constant new material for sale, why not make it improved and cleaned up material?
> 
> Wizards has learned a lot about 4e since they first designed it, I'd love to see 4.5.  Yes, people would complain about having to by boos, but that's what Wizards needs you to do anyway.  More people concentrating buying fewer 4.5 core books means they can focus more time on those instead of on coming out with a lot of different books that will only get picked up by some percentage of gamers.




I can sympathize with this, of course I think what the 4e devs would say in response is that they can't afford to abandon the existing customer base like that. If you want this cleaned up 4e that much then the way to get it is to play nothing but Essentials. It really IS a lot cleaner that way. You give up some fun options, but you also get rid of all the cruft.


----------



## OhGodtheRats (Jan 1, 2011)

Obryn said:


> The Tribal feats are pretty awful, too - "Hey, if we ALL spend a feat slot on X, we can each get a bonus just barely better than taking (skill focus/improved initiative/etc)!" I know those haven't been replaced by better alternatives, but I'd love to remove them for uselessness.
> -O



 As soon as I begin to type my defense of that one Tribal "Mountain" feat...the one giving a boost to Surge Value that most of our party had during our trek through Heroic....I realize that Swift Recovery is the overtly better choice and I do a 180' and have to agree.
...Until I look it up.  The Enduring Mountain Tribal feat says when you spend a Surge, you gain 2 extra + 1 for each ally with the Feat.  Swift Recovery: Requires Endurance and gives a Feat Bonus +3 that Scales up per Tier.    One's easier to get but is optimal if you can Con more folks into taking it, the other's Superior (more so at later tiers) but requires Skill Training.  Apples & Oranges.  (Disclaimer: I admit most of the Tribal Feats do exist in a weird "Why would I take that" land but my point is not all of them.) 

It's been mentioned above but weakish feats that stack with other feats? Golden.
-Jared

(This Text Does not Exist: In my Dream Update, Expertise Feats are no longer feats but Class Features/Freebies given to Characters.  Mostly because I have no idea if the Encounter designers assume every player has them when they make Monsters, they're a Math Combat Fix, or if they're a legit boost meant to increase accuracy/speed of combat/fun when you don't miss.  If that makes any sense.  Seriously, when they first started showing up, I thought it was to help balance out characters who had a 16 in their main stat or something.  Now they're a class of Feats you pretty much HAVE to take, or so peer pressure goes. If they're actually mandatory, why aren't they free?  This is a tangent & my apologies for such)


----------



## Destil (Jan 1, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Consider all of the feats that were pretty much designed as obsolete. Here: You can either have a feat bonus that's conditional, or the same feat bonus that's constant. Which do you want?




This is a big part of why I banned expertise out of the box, but I think a bunch of these are now unnamed bonuses last I looked (i.e. Hellfire Blood, Warforged Tactics).

Still, with the cleaned up implement rules all the +1/2/3 to two damage type feats can just go die in an (astral) fire thanks. Even if not strictly *always* better.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 1, 2011)

Destil said:


> This is a big part of why I banned expertise out of the box, but I think a bunch of these unnamed bonuses last I looked (i.e. Hellfire Blood, Warforged Tactics).
> 
> Still, with the cleaned up implement rules all the +1/2/3 to two damage type feats can just go away, thanks, even if not strictly *always* better.




They were cleaning up those also. Things like Feyborn Charm went from unnamed bonus to feat bonus, which significantly nerfed my my 20th Fey/Darklock. I was already well below what Wizards considered to be the appropriate hit and defense bonuses.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 1, 2011)

Re Enduring Mountain: Because it stacks with the other +HP / surge feats, there is no reason not to take it if that's a priority, though of course it is most effective if you are in a group that all takes it.

Another Tribal feat that could be useful is Bloodied Spear, which adds to attack and damage on OAs.  It's worse at Paragon and worse still at Epic because it's a feat bonus and the incremental utility will be lower.  There is also the issue that some PCs just never have occasion to perform OAs, so they will be taking the feat primarily to help out other party members.

The best one of all might well be Midnight Stalker -- when stealth is needed, _everyone_ needs to be stealthy.

The rest of them are all pretty crappy.


----------



## Mapache (Jan 1, 2011)

There's also a few feats like Barreling Charge, which now do literally nothing because of rules changes.  (It's now just a restatement of part of the universal Charge rules.)


----------



## Mengu (Jan 2, 2011)

I would be perfectly fine with any of the following:

- retire some feats
- classify some feats as "half feats" that you can get two for one.
- classify some feats as "powerful" that you can only get at certain levels, say 2, 6, 10.
- revisit old feats and do a combination of retiring, or updating of those that are not on par.
- any other solution that declutters the feat field, and/or makes it more difficult to make poor choices.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 2, 2011)

Mengu said:


> - classify some feats as "half feats" that you can get two for one.
> - classify some feats as "powerful" that you can only get at certain levels, say 2, 6, 10.




I've thought of that before, too, but frankly it seems like the kind of "complexity" that WotC only ever introduce in an Unearthed Arcana (aka Arcana Unearthed) tome of optional doodads.


----------



## Runestar (Jan 2, 2011)

I smell a new splatbook on the horizon.

Feat compendium - containing a streamlined list of revised feats.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jan 5, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> They . . . significantly nerfed my my 20th Fey/Darklock. . . .




Dangit! Now I want to create a character to be named Min-Mei Darth Feylock.* 
(No, that would be her *name*; I haven't settled on a class yet. . . .) 

(* Too much of a nod to Feena Fam Earthlight? Noel Wreathlit? Blanc Neige? Lucy Maria Misora?)


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 5, 2011)

Sorry for being a bit late to the thread, but here's a small list of obsolete feats for the OP. Additions and corrections are welcome. 
Format used is: _Old Feat_ -> _New Feat_

Agile Stand (MP2) -> Spring Step (PH3)

Armored Endurance Training (MP2) -> Armor Finesse (PE1)
Armored Swiftness Training (MP2) -> Armor Finesse (PE1)

Artful Provocation (MP1) -> Opportunity Knocks (MP2)

Astral Fire (PH1) -> Implement Focus (PE1)
Burning Blizzard (PH1) -> Implement Focus (PE1)
Dark Fury (PH1) -> Implement Focus (PE1)
Raging Storm (PH1) -> Implement Focus (PE1)
Retribution Seeker (Dra381) -> Implement Focus (PE1)
Student of Moil (Dra371) -> Implement Focus (PE1)

Barreling Charge (MP2)
Obsolete due to rules change.

Bolstering Touch (Dra385) -> Lend Health (Dra388)

Chainmail Agility (MP1) -> Heavy Armor Agility (PE1, PE2)
Iron Propulsion (PsiP) -> Heavy Armor Agility (PE1, PE2)

Dilettante's Mark (Dra379) -> Defending Dabbler (Dra385)

Fated Survival (Dra381) -> Resilient Focus (PE1)
Iron Resolve of Zerthadlun (PH3) -> Resilient Focus (PE1)
Liberating Teleport (PH3) -> Resilient Focus (PE1)
Sturdy Mind (Dra389) -> Resilient Focus (PE1)

Grit (MP1) -> Disciple of Stone (PE1, PE2)

Group Flanking (MP1) -> Vexing Flanker (PH2)

Implement Expertise (Ki Focus) (PH2) -> Ki Focus Expertise (HoS)
Implement Expertise (Orb) (PH2) -> Orb Expertise (PE1)
Implement Expertise (Rod) (PH2) -> Rod Expertise (PE2)
Implement Expertise (Staff) (PH2) -> Staff Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Implement Expertise (Totem) (PH2) -> Totem Expertise (HoF)
Implement Expertise (Wand) (PH2) -> Wand Expertise (PE1, PE2)

Longsword Finesse (MP1) -> Versatile Duelist (Dra381)
(Note: Technically, Longsword Finesse allows SA with an MBA, but has reduced SA damage overall.)

Night's Sight (Dra371) -> Low-Light Adaptation (PE2)
Twilight Training (MP2) -> Low-Light Adaptation (PE2)

Paragon Defenses (PH2) -> Improved Defenses (PE1)
Robust Defenses (PH2) -> Improved Defenses (PE1)
Scion of the Gods (FRPG) -> Improved Defenses (PE1)

Psionic Staff Focus (PsiP) -> Staff Expertise (PE1)

Seize the Moment (PH1) -> Aggressive Advantage (PE1, PE2), Superior Reflexes (PE1, PE2)

Shifting Wind (Dra383) -> Disciple of the Wild (PE1, PE2)
Unstoppable Drive (Dra388) -> Disciple of the Wild (PE1, PE2)

Skill Swap (Dra383) -> Skill Power (PH3)

Staggering Shot (MP) -> Hobbling Strike (MP2)

Ubiquitous Shield (Dra385) -> Eyes in the Back of your Head (PH3)

Venom Handler (Dra379) -> Poison Adaptation (Dra391)

Versatile Expertise (Staff) (PH3) -> Staff Expertise (PE1, PE2)

Weapon Expertise (Axe) (PH2) -> Axe Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Bow) (PH2) -> Bow Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Crossbow) (PH2) -> Crossbow Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Flail) (PH2) -> Flail Expertise (MME)
Weapon Expertise (Hammer) (PH2) -> Bludgeon Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blade) (PH2) -> Heavy Blade Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Light Blade) (PH2) -> Light Blade Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Mace) (PH2) -> Bludgeon Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Pick) (PH2) -> Pick Expertise (MME)
Weapon Expertise (Polearm) (PH2) -> Polearm Expertise (MME)
Weapon Expertise (Sling) (PH2) -> Sling Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Spear) (PH2) -> Spear Expertise (PE1, PE2)
Weapon Expertise (Staff) (PH2) -> Staff Expertise (PE1, PE2)

All other Weapon Expertise feats (PH2) -> Master at Arms (PE1, PE2)


PE1 = Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands
PE2 = Player Essentials: Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms


----------



## Mengu (Jan 5, 2011)

Nice list. Just to add one off the top of my head...

Human Perseverance (PHB) -> Resilient Focus (PE1, PE2)


----------



## Aulirophile (Jan 5, 2011)

Mengu said:


> Nice list. Just to add one off the top of my head...
> 
> Human Perseverance (PHB) -> Resilient Focus (PE1, PE2)



Technically that one isn't obsolete. If you have Human Perseverance, there are other feats that if you take them work better. Like

*Don't Count Me Out*

*Heroic Tier*
*Prerequisite*: Human
*Benefit*:  While you are bloodied, you gain a +2 feat bonus to saving throws  against effects that immobilize, daze, stun, or weaken you. Increase  this bonus to +3 if you have the Human Perseverance feat.

Off-hand I can't think of a _reason _you'd do that, but if you really want an extra +1 to those conditions while bloodied and are human, it is an option that Resilient Focus doesn't have. There are tons of truly obsolete feats, but finding them can be a pain.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jan 5, 2011)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> Flash of the Blade (Dra381) -> Cunning Stalker (PE2)




Not being a subscriber, I don't have the text in front of me, but I was under the impression that flash of the blade does NOT grant CA, it merely allows one to use sneak attack. Specifically it's the only way that one of the thief tricks is worth having (that one which gives +cha to damage if you don't have CA).

That said, it probably should be obsoleted (and that thief trick changed so it's not a trap - my suggestion would be to have it also allow sneak attack when you don't have CA).


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 5, 2011)

tuxgeo said:


> Dangit! Now I want to create a character to be named Min-Mei Darth Feylock.*
> (No, that would be her *name*; I haven't settled on a class yet. . . .)
> 
> (* Too much of a nod to Feena Fam Earthlight? Noel Wreathlit? Blanc Neige? Lucy Maria Misora?)




So, a female Elf Bard who sings pop tunes, while wearing a black metal mask?


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 5, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Not being a subscriber, I don't have the text in front of me, but I was under the impression that flash of the blade does NOT grant CA, it merely allows one to use sneak attack. Specifically it's the only way that one of the thief tricks is worth having (that one which gives +cha to damage if you don't have CA).
> 
> That said, it probably should be obsoleted (and that thief trick changed so it's not a trap - my suggestion would be to have it also allow sneak attack when you don't have CA).




You're right, FotB is actually worthwhile if you're using Feinting Trick and meet the requirements (rapier use). However, you're missing +2 to hit when you should be getting CA reliably with Ambush Trick and Tactical Trick, so it's very situational IMO. It is an option if you want to have all bases covered, so to speak, at the cost of one feat (assuming a thief will get rapier proficiency at some point anyway).

Regarding your suggestion, I'd rather replace the +Cha damage with allowing SA when you don't have CA. YMMV.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 5, 2011)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> It is an option if you want to have all bases covered, so to speak, at the cost of one feat (assuming a thief will get rapier proficiency at some point anyway).




I wouldn't.  It's basically +2 damage (+4 at Epic) compared to a dagger, which is great, but now you need to maintain two weapons at high + values.  If I'm going to do that, I'd rather have *two* *daggers* with useful add-on effects (e.g. Subtle and Determined).  Thief damage is plenty high on its own -- I'd prefer to go with feats that give me more staying power (Toughness, Durable, etc.), more movement options (Roll With It, Long Stride), extra attacks (Agile Opportunist, Repel Charge), or better better defenses.  I'm not saying it's a bad choice, but I'd skip it.


----------



## Nebten (Jan 5, 2011)

Pretty much any of the feats tha were keyed off a critical hit. These were primarly in PHB 1. The odds of them being used during the game are minor and a majority of the effects are not worth the feat slot. Also, a majority of the time, since it is constently being used, people forget that they have that effect go off. Out of a 9 player game at level 10, one person took up one of these feats and was planning on training out of it the next level. They seem like they were made to fill they page.

Feat = Roll Critical + Condition (Prone, Daze, Push, Slide, etc), try to be a little more creative.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jan 5, 2011)

Crit-fishermen like things that trigger on a crit. Those feats are definitely not obsolete.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 5, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I'm not saying it's a bad choice, but I'd skip it.




It's not my preference either, just an option. My thief likes to stay out of melee for the most part. Shortbow sniping from 5 squares away is fun.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 5, 2011)

Nebten said:


> Pretty much any of the feats tha were keyed off a critical hit. These were primarly in PHB 1. The odds of them being used during the game are minor and a majority of the effects are not worth the feat slot. Also, a majority of the time, since it is constently being used, people forget that they have that effect go off. Out of a 9 player game at level 10, one person took up one of these feats and was planning on training out of it the next level. They seem like they were made to fill they page.




You're talking about niche/situational feats, but the OP looks for obsolete feats.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of highly situational feats (or ones with "fiddly bonuses", as some call them). Evaluating these feats, however, is rather subjective and also dependent on character builds, as Joshua Randall pointed out.


----------



## funnybunny (Jan 5, 2011)

Thanks for the handy list! My players'll love it!


----------



## Ferghis (Jan 7, 2011)

Seriously, that is a great list. Now if only someone had a good list of deprecated feats, instead of obsolete ones. I'd consider letting my players pick deprecated feats at odd levels.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jan 7, 2011)

You'll never get consensus on what's deprecated and what isn't. This thread itself contains several examples of that.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 7, 2011)

Alright, I've finished my list of obsolete feats so far. I've probably missed a few, so if you come across an obsolete feat that's not on the list, please post it here.


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 14, 2011)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> Dark Fury (PH1) -> Implement Focus (PE1)




These aren't exactly the same. Implement Focus only applies to implement attacks, while Dark Fury will cover things like a Dark Pact Warlock's Darkspiral Aura. For some builds (like my darklock's) it can be a tough choice.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 14, 2011)

I keep hoping that those dual-element damage booster feats will have their bonus turned into an untyped one. They may be suboptimal, but they added a bit of flavour at the same time as damage.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Feb 14, 2011)

Alphastream said:


> These aren't exactly the same. Implement Focus only applies to implement attacks, while Dark Fury will cover things like a Dark Pact Warlock's Darkspiral Aura. For some builds (like my darklock's) it can be a tough choice.




Good catch; list updated. Which other builds can make good use of that category of feats?


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 14, 2011)

Alphastream said:


> These aren't exactly the same. Implement Focus only applies to implement attacks, while Dark Fury will cover things like a Dark Pact Warlock's Darkspiral Aura. For some builds (like my darklock's) it can be a tough choice.




When was Darkspiral Aura printed as a power?


----------



## Mapache (Feb 14, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> When was Darkspiral Aura printed as a power?




It's listed as such in the Warlock entry on the Compendium.


----------



## Fredrik Svanberg (Feb 14, 2011)

It would be nice if obsolete feats were listed as such in the compendium at least, with a link to the feat or feats that makes them obsolete.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 14, 2011)

Mapache said:


> It's listed as such in the Warlock entry on the Compendium.




Except that it's a Pact Boon (class feature), not a power. The breakdown in compendium is....... less than optimal.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Feb 14, 2011)

So Dark Fury doesn't affect the Darkspiral aura. That's interesting. Updating list...


----------



## Hof (Feb 14, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> I keep hoping that those dual-element damage booster feats will have their bonus turned into an untyped one. They may be suboptimal, but they added a bit of flavour at the same time as damage.




If these feats get an update, perhaps it should also be along the lines of the new expertise feats: simple numerical bonus with an added twist. Just to make them a little more interesting.

For example:
*Astral Fire*
*Benefit:* You gain a +1 per tier bonus to damage rolls when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword.
In addition, any ongoing damage caused by your powers which have the fire or radiant keyword is increased by 1+1per tier.

*Burning Blizzard*
*Benefit*: You gain a +1 per tier bonus to damage rolls when you use a power that has the acid or the cold keyword.
In addition, when you use a power which has the acid or cold keyword against a creature with the slowed, immobilized or restrained condition, the creature grants combat advantage for this attack.


Note that I left the prerequisite lines out on purpose. They can make sense for powerful feats, but thematics like these don't need any prereq's IMHO.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 14, 2011)

Mapache said:


> It's listed as such in the Warlock entry on the Compendium.




The Compendium isn't the primary source.


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 22, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> Except that it's a Pact Boon (class feature), not a power. The breakdown in compendium is....... less than optimal.



For what it is worth, the Compendium states:
"ELDRITCH PACT
You have forged a pact with mysterious entities that grant you your arcane powers. Choose one pact. The pacts presented in the Player’s Handbook are the fey pact, the infernal pact, and the star pact. Other products present additional pacts. The pact you choose determines the following warlock abilities:
    At-Will Spells: Your pact determines one of the at-will spells you know.
    Pact Boon: Each pact includes a pact boon. The pact boon is a granted *power *you can use to further hex your enemies."

Essentials also seems to be treating class features as powers. The CB, both old and new, treat Dark Fury as applying to Darkspiral aura. Nonetheless, I have opened a ticket with CS.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 22, 2011)

Perhaps, but CB isn't a primary source either.

Unless Darkspiral Aura gets reprinted, or the original version is errata'd, it's not a power.

The only primary source currently in existance is the FRPG.  The other possible source that might have had it in the future?  Canceled.

Also, the most recently printed pact boon for regular warlocks, the Sorcerer-King Pact's Fel Scorn?

Not a power.  There has yet to be a pact boon in existance for the non-hexblade warlock that is a power.


----------



## Dan'L (Feb 22, 2011)

Alphastream said:


> For what it is worth, the Compendium states:
> 
> Pact Boon: Each pact includes a pact boon. The pact boon is a granted *power *you can use to further hex your enemies."




More to the point, the PHB also contains this wording (p. 130), and you can't get much more primary a source than that.

As secondary, anecdotal support, I'll mention the D&D comic book (I know, far from authoritative) which in the back of issue 4 has the character sheet for a Star Pact Warlock.  It lists "Fate of the Void" as an at-will power, so there is at least some indication that even the original PHB pact boons are intended to be powers.

(As I do not have a DDI subscription, I will ask:  how are pact boons formatted & presented when printed?  Are they given the format of a power?)

So, even though the pact boon is not presented in the format that other  attack and utility powers are, I could see a case being made that it is  indeed a power.

However, in regards to being able to use Astral Fire to boost the damage from the pact boon, there is another consideration.  Astral Fire and similar feats specifically apply to powers with certain keywords.   I do not have the FRPG, so I will ask:  does Dark Spiral Aura, not being presented in the standard format for a power, contain a list of keywords?  If not, then it doesn't have the 'radiant' keyword, and cannot benefit from Astral Fire.

Alternatively, is there a rule that makes it explicit that if a power deals 'x' type of damage that it _*must *_have 'x' keyword?  The best I can find is that if it has 'x' keyword it does 'x' type of damage, which is not quite the same, and also rules that pertain to adding or removing a damage type, which again does not quite address the question at hand.

-Dan'L


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2011)

In CBC, the Pact Boons are, in fact, listed in the "powers" list and get a power card. Darkspiral Aura has the keywords Arcane, Necrotic, and Psychic.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 22, 2011)

The 'is it a power' question has gotten more and more tangled over time. Pact Boons were never powers in PHB1, nor were other class feature effects of a similar nature. WotC soon saw the error of their ways in that regard and you notice that even PHB2 is much more likely to express things in the form of a power block. When the DDI Compendium was put together MOST effects were given a power block type format, but not all. Each new iteration of the rules has trended more in this direction. The RC for instance describes a number of things as powers which were simply basic effects before, like Opportunity Action. 

The problem of course is that this does lead to inconsistent interpretation of the rules. Then the further question is what actually ARE the official rules? The RC would take precedence over PHB1presumably, as would errata. The DDI Compendium OTOH is what? CB is what? LFR (at least at one time, dunno how this has been amended) lists them both as rules sources, but nowhere is there any indication made by WotC as to precedence between conflicting sources. 

So, nobody can really say if X, Y, or Z are or are not powers when they have been presented both ways. Since RC doesn't have class or race features/powers in it there's no help there. Basically you'll have to decide at your table which source is governing, or just pick whichever interpretation you like out of the 'official' choices and go with it on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2011)

I think a big part of the problem, is that we have *p*owers and *P*owers. When you create an expectation that a word carries a certain meaning, you have to be very cautious in the use of that word.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, we have things that have been presented as both 'Powers' and as things that aren't powers, but I'm assuming are what you mean by 'powers' with a small p. The real nut of the thing is the PHB1 was just not all that consistent and the presentation wasn't always thought through too well.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, we have things that have been presented as both 'Powers' and as things that aren't powers, but I'm assuming are what you mean by 'powers' with a small p. The real nut of the thing is the PHB1 was just not all that consistent and the presentation wasn't always thought through too well.




Yes, that's what I meant. The word "powers" is used in the description of what a Pact Boon is, but the clear intent (to me at least), is that they aren't Powers (capital "P").


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 28, 2011)

If we are talking intent, the most recent intent seems to be making these powers. But, even with Essentials it isn't always that way. Intent is easier to argue as unclear than anything else.


----------



## eamon (May 4, 2011)

Alphastream said:


> If we are talking intent, the most recent intent seems to be making these powers. But, even with Essentials it isn't always that way. Intent is easier to argue as unclear than anything else.



There's also consistency.  A power is merely "something you can do" (as opposed to properties which are always on).  I'd argue it'd be best for all rules elements to consider that notion synonymous with "power".  So either consider all voluntary actions powers (e.g. including move, shift, charge, etc.), or better yet ban the use of the word "power" as a modifier to when a rule applies.

Honestly, I expect the _only_ reason such rules apply to "powers" is that it's easier to write that way.  It reads uncomfortably to gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls on "something" with the necrotic or psychic keyword - you want to fill in the blank, and preferably with something clear and concise - hey _power_!

In general, to prevent exactly this kind of confusion, it's best to never define rules purely in terms of intrinsically meaningless concepts.  The raison d'etre of the term "power" it a metagame concept to be able to clearly communicate how the game functions.   For that it works excellently, but involving a purely metagame concept in the mechanics resolution is just confusing.

Anyhow, it's a PHB 1 feat; it's hardly reasonable to expect perfection, but neither should one read it as "meaningful rule" when it shows rather more resemblance to "design oversight".


----------



## Ryujin (May 4, 2011)

I would tend to think that, since mechanics _*IS *_metagame, it's best to incorporate clear meanings as to terms. As to filling the blank, in something like a feat description, it seems to me that "something you can do" is frequently extraneous.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jan 14, 2012)

List updated.


----------



## Tallifer (Jun 3, 2012)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> List updated.




Many thanks for this extremely useful list.

I subscribe to the Dungeons & Dragons Insider, but I usually do not use the new character builder, because it is so prone to crashing whenever I try to make a cutepdf. However with your list I can pencil in the appropriate changes to my old style character sheet.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 19, 2012)

Ryujin said:


> Yes, that's what I meant. The word "powers" is used in the description of what a Pact Boon is, but the clear intent (to me at least), is that they aren't Powers (capital "P").




Aside from headings, which are always capitalized, power is never capitalized in 4e terminology, so this feels like pointless semantics.

Also, for those arguing that a "class feature power" doesn't count as a normal power should read the How to Read A Power section in the PHB.



> The first line of a power description gives the name of the power, the class it’s associated with, the kind of power it is (attack or utility), and the power’s level (*or the fact that it’s a class feature*).




Emphasis mine. If it comes in that format (they later put the Pact Boons in that format), it's a power. Otherwise, it wouldn't use the power format.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 19, 2012)

The Little Raven said:


> Aside from headings, which are always capitalized, power is never capitalized in 4e terminology, so this feels like pointless semantics.




I didn't say that they were. I said that maybe they should be. The imprecision of language used, in many sections of the rules, is responsible for the majority of confusion over them. If you're going to define a term, then that term must be consistently used throughout the rules.



> Also, for those arguing that a "class feature power" doesn't count as a normal power should read the How to Read A Power section in the PHB.
> 
> Emphasis mine. If it comes in that format (they later put the Pact Boons in that format), it's a power. Otherwise, it wouldn't use the power format.




And there's another cause for confusion; they 'later' did it another way. Does that invalidate the previous? Supersede it? Have no effect whatsoever? 

Consistency isn't necessarily the hobgoblin of small minds. Certainly not when it comes to creating a viable framework, from which to hang all things.


----------

