# PHB2 general feats review (heroic tier)



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2009)

Herein I give my thoughts on the general feats of PHB2 (the feats that can be taken by PHB1 characters = the feats that doesn't rely on PHB2 races or classes) for the heroic tier. As a grading system, I'm using the one that comes naturally: will it be allowed in my game? 

*Combat Medic*
(You stabilize the dying as a minor action instead of a standard action; you also get a +2 feat bonus to Heal)
This doesn't seem to be a very strong feat. Starting on the multiclass path into Cleric seems much more worthwhile. Feels somewhat like a "3E NPC feat".
I'll allow it but won't expect anyone to actually take it.

*Coordinated Explosion*
You get a +1 untyped bonus to attacks for bursts/blasts that include 1+ allies.
Somewhat of a WTF? feat. Please tell me how to abuse this (casting Fireball against an ally immune to fire etc). Rather artificial feel to it - how does torching your allies make it easier to hit your foes?
Whatever math imbalance that's behind this feat must surely be fixable another way. 
Not allowed - I don't need feats that actually encourage undesirable behavior (of either the jerkwad or the cheese kind)

*Distant Advantage*
You gain combat advantage against flanked enemies at a range (your allies can flank for you).
This is weird. In most rpgs shooting into melee is dangerous and difficult; this feat makes it actually advantageous to do so. I'd say this feat single-handedly changes a major rules assumption (that to flank; you must expose your ass). 
Not allowed: to me the unviability of the "distance rogue" archetype is a solution, not a problem. 

*Echoes of Thunder*
Hitting with [Thunder] powers make you do more damage until the end of your next turn.
Allowed.

*Expert Ritualist*
+2 to skill checks for rituals.
Allowed but a big "meh"

*Implement Expertise*
This feat is discussed extensively elsewhere. This is not one of those threads, so I'm not commenting 

*Improved Bull Rush*
+4 feat bonus.
Must say I'm underwhelmed. Would have liked to see more of a mechanical advantage (than simply a better chance to hit). Unlike Grab, Bull Rush does do it's thing though, so I guess it's okay.
Allowed.

*Improved Grab*
+4 feat bonus.
A bonus is nice, but this doesn't change the basics: the Grab still sucks. This feat needed to change that, making it harder to escape or at least make it possible to both Grab and do a follow-up attack in the same round.
Allowed, but "meh".

*Melee Training*
You can use whatever ability you like instead of Strength when making melee basic attacks (Opportunity Attacks).
Not too bad. Though combats aren't won through OAs, so this feat is still kind of low on the priority scale - unless you have a power that lets you do more stuff with opportunity attacks. Then this feat could be awesome.
Allowed - I guess. (I'm hesitating because on the surface it sucks, and if it doesn't suck, it might be gamebreaking)

*Oncoming Storm*
Hit with lightning and you get a damage bonus - on Thunder attacks!
Allowed. I like how these energy type damage boosting feats aren't simply identical.

*Restful Healing*
Healing done AFTER a short rest but BEFORE the next encounter get maximized.
This is very weird indeed. Why would you want to encourage a focus on the non-space between a short rest and the next encounter? This is taking the game into a direction I don't want to go - I far prefer short rests to mean a minimum of administration, so no "playing the system".
Not Allowed (IMC, as a feat I guess it's "meh". Use it if you like)

*Speed Loader*
Reload crossbows for free.
Not Allowed - the defining feature of a crossbow is that takes time to reload, and thus can't be used for D&D automatic fire. This feat erases this. Why even have a crossbow if it effectively works as a bow?!

*Surging Flame*
After you've hit a fire-resistant target with a fire power, all fire attacks do 5 more damage.
Not sure I see any logic behind this one. This seems to be here so fire-lovers can justify not changing tactics when faced with fire monsters?
It weirdly turns fire resistance into a liability - against fire! WTF? This can't be a good strategy to promote, and it messes with the meaning of "resistance"...
Not allowed - why should I add a feat that just makes a mess of perfectly good and simple game concepts?

*Timely Respite*
When you use Total Defense (including Second Wind) you can make a saving throw.
A robust if boring feat.
Allowed.

*Two-Weapon Threat*
Makes Two-weapon rangers do +3 damage on opportunity attacks.
Again, not sure focusing on your OAs will win any fights. Don't like the use of the word "threat" in conjunction with OAs - this doesn't change what squares you are threatening in any way.
Why isn't there simply ONE feat adding damage to OAs that can be taken by everyone equally.
Allowed - but don't see much need.

*Weapon Expertise*
This feat is discussed extensively elsewhere. This is not one of those threads, so I'm not commenting 


Thoughts?


----------



## avin (Mar 24, 2009)

Coordinated Explosion seems weird, but I'm fine with it and all other feats as well. 

In my games, if it's official is allowed


----------



## Mengu (Mar 24, 2009)

If I were selectively adding general feats from this list to my game, it would be a very short list:

Distant Advantage
Melee Training
Timely Respite

The rest I think are either weak, too specific, uninterestesting, or encouraging things I don't want encouraged in my game.

As it stands though, I'm tempted to allow everything and let the players make their own decissions, with the exception of expertise feats that I won't talk about.


----------



## Mort_Q (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Speed Loader*
> Reload crossbows for free.
> Not Allowed - the defining feature of a crossbow is that takes time to reload, and thus can't be used for D&D automatic fire. This feat erases this. Why even have a crossbow if it effectively works as a bow?!




D&D is full of stuff like this.  Feats allow you to bend the rules.  That's their purpose.

You're OK with the fact that a ranger or rogue power would let you fire off the crossbow *X* times with free reloads, but not with the PC spending a feat to avoid the minor action to reload before their next standard action?

You have a crossbow 'cause you like the flavour, and 'cause of the advantages it gives (other feats and powers), and 'cause it's not a bow.


----------



## themilkman (Mar 24, 2009)

One note about Melee Training... Characters also use basic melee attacks when charging. Non-strength melee classes (Avenger, Rogue, Druid, Charismadin, etc.) can't really take advantage of the extra movement and to-hit bonus from charging without this feat.

As for Restful Healing, I don't think it's as weird as you're making it out to be. Most people think that healing surges are spent during short rests. Technically, though, you spend healing surges after a short rest, not during it (PHB p. 263). This feat just lets you get a little more out of those surges.


----------



## Alabast (Mar 24, 2009)

A few clarifications:
I don't have the PHB 2 with me, so if I'm mistaken on anything, I apoligize in advance.

Coordinated Explosion works great for those bursts and blasts that included allies, but don't necessarily TARGET allies.  Those for which target line will reads "Each enemy in blast/burst" rather than "Each creature in blast/burst".

Distant advantage does not grant flanking at range.  It give combat advantage when making an attack against an enemy that is flanked by at least two of your allies.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Combat Medic*
> (You stabilize the dying as a minor action instead of a standard action; you also get a +2 feat bonus to Heal)
> This doesn't seem to be a very strong feat. Starting on the multiclass path into Cleric seems much more worthwhile. Feels somewhat like a "3E NPC feat".
> I'll allow it but won't expect anyone to actually take it.



I don't expect anyone to take it, either.  It's a weird flavor feat, IMHO.



> *Coordinated Explosion*
> You get a +1 untyped bonus to attacks for bursts/blasts that include 1+ allies.
> Somewhat of a WTF? feat. Please tell me how to abuse this (casting Fireball against an ally immune to fire etc). Rather artificial feel to it - how does torching your allies make it easier to hit your foes?
> Whatever math imbalance that's behind this feat must surely be fixable another way.
> Not allowed - I don't need feats that actually encourage undesirable behavior (of either the jerkwad or the cheese kind)



It's not really specifically for Wizards.  Many leaders and controller-leaders (like Artificers) have bursts and blasts that hurt enemies and help allies.  I don't really think it's broken for anyone, and it's useful to a few specific classes.



> *Distant Advantage*
> You gain combat advantage against flanked enemies at a range (your allies can flank for you).
> This is weird. In most rpgs shooting into melee is dangerous and difficult; this feat makes it actually advantageous to do so. I'd say this feat single-handedly changes a major rules assumption (that to flank; you must expose your ass).
> Not allowed: to me the unviability of the "distance rogue" archetype is a solution, not a problem.



I actually disagree.  This is one of my favorite feats, and I can completely see it working.  "Hey, you two!  Get his shield out of the way so I can shoot him!"  I think it's the first time missile rogues have been even remotely useful.



> *Improved Bull Rush*
> +4 feat bonus.
> Must say I'm underwhelmed. Would have liked to see more of a mechanical advantage (than simply a better chance to hit). Unlike Grab, Bull Rush does do it's thing though, so I guess it's okay.
> Allowed.



It's at least a big enough bonus to make the maneuver worthwhile.  More a flavor feat than anything, I can still see the point.  Much like bull rush in general, though, you're better off having a Power for it.



> *Melee Training*
> You can use whatever ability you like instead of Strength when making melee basic attacks (Opportunity Attacks).
> Not too bad. Though combats aren't won through OAs, so this feat is still kind of low on the priority scale - unless you have a power that lets you do more stuff with opportunity attacks. Then this feat could be awesome.
> Allowed - I guess. (I'm hesitating because on the surface it sucks, and if it doesn't suck, it might be gamebreaking)



I don't think it's at all gamebreaking...  It just brings crappy basic attacks almost up to par with decent at-will attacks.  Really, it's just an expanded Intelligent Blademaster.  It'll rock for Charisma paladins, some rogues, Swordmages, and Spiral Tower wizards.

I can't see it as broken because, simply put, basic attacks aren't that great.  It's a pretty big bonus with a kind of attack you probably aren't making on purpose anyway.  It's more a de-hosing of some specific classes.



> *Restful Healing*
> Healing done AFTER a short rest but BEFORE the next encounter get maximized.
> This is very weird indeed. Why would you want to encourage a focus on the non-space between a short rest and the next encounter? This is taking the game into a direction I don't want to go - I far prefer short rests to mean a minimum of administration, so no "playing the system".
> Not Allowed (IMC, as a feat I guess it's "meh". Use it if you like)



Really?  I have some players who I think will take this feat.  I approve of it in general, since it will keep the repeated Short Rests down.  I'm a fan, much like I am of the Bard's Song of Rest.



> *Speed Loader*
> Reload crossbows for free.
> Not Allowed - the defining feature of a crossbow is that takes time to reload, and thus can't be used for D&D automatic fire. This feat erases this. Why even have a crossbow if it effectively works as a bow?!



In 4e, Bow/Crossbow is like Axe/Sword.  Crossbows do less damage, but have a higher to-hit.  Unlike in 3e, where crossbows had a few mechanical advantages like higher damage dice and simple weapon status, that's basically the difference.  They'd be balanced against each other if crossbows didn't have that pesky long reload time.  I love this feat, since it means a crossbow is now a viable weapon, even if you don't get the magic speed-loading variety. (Which is how my group's artificer currently copes with it.)



> *Surging Flame*
> After you've hit a fire-resistant target with a fire power, all fire attacks do 5 more damage.
> Not sure I see any logic behind this one. This seems to be here so fire-lovers can justify not changing tactics when faced with fire monsters?
> It weirdly turns fire resistance into a liability - against fire! WTF? This can't be a good strategy to promote, and it messes with the meaning of "resistance"...
> Not allowed - why should I add a feat that just makes a mess of perfectly good and simple game concepts?



Any resistance is bound to be at least 5, so this is almost like negating part of the resistance.  At any rate, resistance to fire is the second-most-common resistance (next to necrotic), so I'm in favor of it.  I don't think it negates tactics so much as it makes fire a reasonable choice.  Before this feat, anyone who does anything with fire when they could do something else was basically making a poor choice.  After this feat?  Well, at least it's on the map.



> Thoughts?



You got 'em.   I don't see anything really ban-worthy.  I don't know that all of them are incredible, but then again, 4e feats generally _aren't._

With that said, I did houserule expertise, as endlessly discussed elsewhere.  The feat doesn't exist as such right now.

-O


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2009)

Alabast said:


> Distant advantage does not grant flanking at range.  It give combat advantage when making an attack against an enemy that is flanked by at least two of your allies.



Actual rules text:

Distant Advantage
Benefit: You gain combat advantage for ranged or
area attacks against any enemy flanked by your allies.


----------



## mlangsdorf (Mar 24, 2009)

I actually like Combat Medic.  Especially in longer fights, its possible to exhaust all healing and still have someone go down.  Because the fight is continuing, it's hard to justify spending a standard action healing summon.  But if I could do it as a minor action, that would be pretty impressive.

It's also useful for multiclassed characters (like say a Rogue/Ranger) who often have spare actions available but can't become Leaders to add to the party's automatic healing.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't expect anyone to take it, either.  It's a weird flavor feat, IMHO.



Yeah... non-supernatural healing isn't even on the map in D&D, so why anyone would want to be a "combat medic" is beyond me.

This feat could probably give something like a daily use of a healing/inspiring/majestic word power (or anything else that have a real impact) in addition to its current effects...

It seems to have been written with a completely different (and lower) power level in mind. It's more than decent in a campaign where no magic healing exists, for example.

But it has no business taking up space in a completely mainstream/core  book like PHB2...


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Coordinated Explosion*
> You get a +1 untyped bonus to attacks for bursts/blasts that include 1+ allies.
> Somewhat of a WTF? feat. Please tell me how to abuse this (casting Fireball against an ally immune to fire etc). Rather artificial feel to it - how does torching your allies make it easier to hit your foes?
> Whatever math imbalance that's behind this feat must surely be fixable another way.
> Not allowed - I don't need feats that actually encourage undesirable behavior (of either the jerkwad or the cheese kind)



I think you're missing the point.  There are a lot of bursts and blasts that only target enemies.  As far as I can tell, this spell's theme is that you and your ally coordinate so that the enemy takes the hit harder than he otherwise would.  

This is an alright feat for invokers and clerics.  You could also use it by casting spells on top of allies who are immune or at least resistant to them, which in my group at least is considered kosher.  We've got a fire and ice themed wizard, and a front line paladin with the feat that pumps up your fire resistance to 8+level.  I wouldn't ban this.  If your players create problems with it, odds were they were creating problems without a +1 to attack anyways.


> *Distant Advantage*
> You gain combat advantage against flanked enemies at a range (your allies can flank for you).
> This is weird. In most rpgs shooting into melee is dangerous and difficult; this feat makes it actually advantageous to do so. I'd say this feat single-handedly changes a major rules assumption (that to flank; you must expose your ass).
> Not allowed: to me the unviability of the "distance rogue" archetype is a solution, not a problem.



What about spellcasters?


> *Restful Healing*
> Healing done AFTER a short rest but BEFORE the next encounter get maximized.
> This is very weird indeed. Why would you want to encourage a focus on the non-space between a short rest and the next encounter? This is taking the game into a direction I don't want to go - I far prefer short rests to mean a minimum of administration, so no "playing the system".
> Not Allowed (IMC, as a feat I guess it's "meh". Use it if you like)




This doesn't increase focus on the space between a rest and the next encounter.  It just means that any clerical healing done while not in combat is slightly more efficient.  Saves the party a few healing surges, and costs nothing.  Technically you have to wait an extra five minutes or so for healing word to recharge if you want to use clerical healing instead of base level healing surges between encounters, but this doesn't change that.


> *Surging Flame*
> After you've hit a fire-resistant target with a fire power, all fire attacks do 5 more damage.
> Not sure I see any logic behind this one. This seems to be here so fire-lovers can justify not changing tactics when faced with fire monsters?
> It weirdly turns fire resistance into a liability - against fire! WTF? This can't be a good strategy to promote, and it messes with the meaning of "resistance"...
> Not allowed - why should I add a feat that just makes a mess of perfectly good and simple game concepts?



1. This feat exists to let people play fire themed characters without being screwed over by resistances.  Where you see a player refusing to change tactics, they probably see a game that refuses to allow them to play a viable pyrokineticist.

2. This doesn't turn fire resistance into a liability.  The smallest fire resistance I can think of on a monster is 5.  This lets you hit with a fire power, deal lesser damage because of the resistance, and then hit for a fire power that's 5 fire damage greater than last round, thereby overcoming some of the resistance.  At best you're dealing damage as if your foe didn't have fire resistance, and for any resistance above 5, you're still dealing less.  The ONLY way to use this to turn fire resistance into a liability is to gain an ability that lets you ignore fire resistance.  And even then, it only works if the amount of fire resistance you ignore, plus the 5 extra damage from this, exceeds the total fire resistance of the target (with adjustment for the first round in which you don't deal extra damage).  

The only other thing that I'd add is that... I'm not sure its a good idea to be this particular about allowing or banning material.  Why not at least let the players come up with ideas instead of trying to anticipate the ideas they come up with and deciding whether to ban them in advance?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> But it has no business taking up space in a completely mainstream/core  book like PHB2...



Well, I don't mind a few oddball flavor feats here & there.

At its core, though, remember that it's just 1 point shy of Skill Focus: Healing, and it grants a benefit that some parties might find useful.  For some, that's a perfectly good tradeoff.  It wouldn't be useful in my group - we have 2 leaders, so healing is cheap - but it might in some others, when the healers are out of their mojo.

edit: Also, I can't think of any other non-Power ways to get someone stabilized without using a Standard action.  Administering a healing potion to someone is Standard, as are heal checks as they are.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Combat Medic*
> (You stabilize the dying as a minor action instead of a standard action; you also get a +2 feat bonus to Heal)
> This doesn't seem to be a very strong feat. Starting on the multiclass path into Cleric seems much more worthwhile. Feels somewhat like a "3E NPC feat".
> I'll allow it but won't expect anyone to actually take it.




I think you're underestimating it's usefulness.  There have been a couple of times where I've needed to make a heal check to save a downed player...particularly if that play _is_ the Cleric.  Having to do that as a Standard action sucks, since it makes it a choice of "Attack, or help him".  This feat is something that I might try to fit into my build somewhere as it's a really good way for a Defender to get a chance to help out if things go really bad.

Also, multiclassing Cleric is not the same thing.  MC Cleric gives you a once per day power that grants a Healing Surge + 1d6.  This is allowing you to stabilize the dying in order to stop death saves as a minor, so that you can still keep doing what you need to do to help the rest of the party (As a Fighter, that means attacking and marking).



> *Coordinated Explosion*
> You get a +1 untyped bonus to attacks for bursts/blasts that include 1+ allies.
> Somewhat of a WTF? feat. Please tell me how to abuse this (casting Fireball against an ally immune to fire etc). Rather artificial feel to it - how does torching your allies make it easier to hit your foes?
> Whatever math imbalance that's behind this feat must surely be fixable another way.
> Not allowed - I don't need feats that actually encourage undesirable behavior (of either the jerkwad or the cheese kind)




So a Fighter using Come and Get It to draw in all the spread out enemies and then yelling to the Wizard "Hit them with a bomb now!!!!" is cheesy?  If you look at it in a vacuum of "Oh it's just a +1 to hit when an ally is in the burst", I can see that.  But allowing it in also allows more interesting tactics, like having the Defender mark multiple opponents to keep them close, and then allowing the Wizard to AoE bomb them.  If they try to get away, then the Defender is going to be all over them with CC and CS attacks.  What is that other than well coordinated tactics that also happen to involve an explosion?



> *Distant Advantage*
> You gain combat advantage against flanked enemies at a range (your allies can flank for you).
> This is weird. In most rpgs shooting into melee is dangerous and difficult; this feat makes it actually advantageous to do so. I'd say this feat single-handedly changes a major rules assumption (that to flank; you must expose your ass).
> Not allowed: to me the unviability of the "distance rogue" archetype is a solution, not a problem.




Here I think you're just being unnecessarily mean to the Rogue.  To even get use out of this you have to have two melee characters already flanking the enemy, so they're exposing their asses plenty.  

Secondly, this isn't "most rpgs" and firing into melee is not an issue.  If you have a problem with that aspect, then you need to change all the rules and severely hamper the ranger and any other primarily ranged PC as well.

Lastly, how else is a Rogue supposed to get CA at range?  Stealth is pretty much about it, which means that a player that wants to play a ranged Rogue (with perhaps a Crossbow or thrown weapons) is only as effective as the terrain that you assign to an encounter.  This makes it one of the hardest builds to play, since you don't know from one encounter to another whether he'll even be able to effective or not.  This feat at least allows that build to be viable.



> *Restful Healing*
> Healing done AFTER a short rest but BEFORE the next encounter get maximized.
> This is very weird indeed. Why would you want to encourage a focus on the non-space between a short rest and the next encounter? This is taking the game into a direction I don't want to go - I far prefer short rests to mean a minimum of administration, so no "playing the system".
> Not Allowed (IMC, as a feat I guess it's "meh". Use it if you like)




This actually doesn't make sense.  The rules specifically provide an example of using Healing Words during a short rest, which means your Cleric is going to be rolling a lot of d6's.  For the cost of a feat, they can get rid of those rolls and all the administration that goes with it.  So in fact, you're actually going to make short rests go _smoother_ by allowing the feat, not the opposite.



> *Speed Loader*
> Reload crossbows for free.
> Not Allowed - the defining feature of a crossbow is that takes time to reload, and thus can't be used for D&D automatic fire. This feat erases this. Why even have a crossbow if it effectively works as a bow?!




"Why even have a crossbow if it effectively works as a bow?!" - A bow can't be held in one hand...that's one reason.  Plus, they don't have the same range or do the same damage, so it's still not the same.

This feat, I suspect, was mainly for Rogues and Rangers.  Rogues, because it allows them to use a Crossbow effectively while freeing up their minor for the weapon switching.  Of course, if they have Martial Power they could just use two-fisted shooter...but I'm guessing you've disallowed that one too since it's very similar to this one (although it only works with Hand Crossbows).

For Rangers, it's useful because some people just like the flavor of a Crossbow better, but using a Crossbow means that they have to choose between moving and quarrying because of having to reload each round with a minor.



> *Surging Flame*
> After you've hit a fire-resistant target with a fire power, all fire attacks do 5 more damage.
> Not sure I see any logic behind this one. This seems to be here so fire-lovers can justify not changing tactics when faced with fire monsters?
> It weirdly turns fire resistance into a liability - against fire! WTF? This can't be a good strategy to promote, and it messes with the meaning of "resistance"...
> Not allowed - why should I add a feat that just makes a mess of perfectly good and simple game concepts?




Fire _is _the second most resisted damage type, and usually much easier for a PC to get as a damage type than necrotic (the most resisted).  This is simply a way to allow those who use a lot of fire (Tieflings, anyone?  Infernal Warlocks?) to have a way to cope with the LARGE number of creatures resistant to their damage type.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 24, 2009)

Also, just as a note, I love Melee Training because it will finally make my dream character of a Dwarf Pact-Mordenkrad-wielding Infernalock a viable option.  Now I don't need to sink points into Strength getting a cruddy basic attack - just a feat I wasn't using anyway. 

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 24, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Well, I don't mind a few oddball flavor feats here & there.
> 
> At its core, though, remember that it's just 1 point shy of Skill Focus: Healing, and it grants a benefit that some parties might find useful.  For some, that's a perfectly good tradeoff.  It wouldn't be useful in my group - we have 2 leaders, so healing is cheap - but it might in some others, when the healers are out of their mojo.
> 
> ...




My party has two Clerics.  One of them got knocked out early in the encounter, before he even got a chance to use his heals.  The other Cleric used a Healing Word on him to get him back up, but one of the DM's monsters had a readied action to hit him if he got back up.  When he hit him, it knocked the Cleric out again.  So, we had one Cleric with one effective heal, and our other Cleric was failing death saves.

I ended up having to fight my way up to the Cleric to try and help him out.  Since I had a choice to either give him a potion (Standard action) or let a dice roll determine if he was stabilized, could spend a surge, or just flub the roll and do nothing (Standard action), I chose to feed him a potion.  Personally, I _really_ could've used Combat Medic in that fight, because I would've rather had a chance to roll with a minor and have the possibility of getting him up again, while still having my attack action left to cover his escape (probaly using the aptly named "Covering Attack").  As it was, all I could do was give him the potion and hope that no one got around me.

You should never underestimate the power of bad situations to force novel tactics, or underestimate the power of your players to see value in things that you as the DM do not.  Just because you guys think this feat is a bit weak does not mean that every player will...and some might even think it's a gift from the gods that will better allow them to fill their role at the table.


----------



## Rughat (Mar 24, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Melee Training*
> You can use whatever ability you like instead of Strength when making melee basic attacks (Opportunity Attacks).
> Not too bad. Though combats aren't won through OAs, so this feat is still kind of low on the priority scale - unless you have a power that lets you do more stuff with opportunity attacks. Then this feat could be awesome.
> Allowed - I guess. (I'm hesitating because on the surface it sucks, and if it doesn't suck, it might be gamebreaking)




Another nice thing about this feat: If I'm playing a Warlord and I'm in a party with a Chr Paladin and Dex Rogue, Commander's Strike no longer sucks.  Heck, this makes the Warlord flanking with the Rogue really awesome: double your chance to deal sneak attack damage each round.


----------



## Victim (Mar 24, 2009)

The issue with Combat Medic is that it's usually much better to activate the second wind of dying character, rather than stabilize them.  If the action is available.


----------



## fissionessence (Mar 24, 2009)

I find it intriguing that in the original post, the only feats that were allowed were ones that seemed boring or useless to the OP. The ones that seemed good and/or useful weren't allowed.

In my game, if it's published by WotC, it's allowed (I'll wait and see if my players notice expertise). In fact, if it's from a 3PP, it's also probably allowed. In fact, if you want to make up your own feat, that should be fine, too.

I'm glad not to play under a DM that picks and chooses what he wants my character to look like. (Sometimes campaigns make demands as to races and classes that might or might not exist in the game world, but manipulating the allowed feats to the degree represented in the original post seems pretty extreme, IMO.)

~ fissionessence


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 24, 2009)

Of all those feats, I think combat medic should have been a general "all uses of the heal skill become minor actions" and thrown out the +2. That would have made it a much better and more generally useful feat I feel.

Improved grab and improved bullrush I feel are actually decent feats: attacks that move foes or eat their actions are typically daily or encounter powers, and if you only need to move a foe a single square, or delay him for a half round it can often be a waste to use a limited resource that would fling him 5 or stun him. Getting a +4 to make those actions more certain is a very good thing if you use them a lot.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 24, 2009)

I'll allow them all tbh. Two-Weapon Threat btw is amazing for tempest fighters.


----------



## mlund (Mar 24, 2009)

It is generally prudent to exercise power over the liberty of your peers only when absolutely necessary or at their direct request as an impartial arbiter of their specific disagreements. Since that's my guiding principle in the matter, I'll fully allow all the Feats from the PHB2 unless they *prove* themselves to have a negative impact on the fun of one or more members of my table.

Frankly, none of the Feats in the PHB2 really warp the game or bend the power-curve outside of the Expertise Feats, which are mainly an overdue  game-patch anyway.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Tellerve (Mar 24, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> My party has two Clerics.  One of them got knocked out early in the encounter, before he even got a chance to use his heals.  The other Cleric used a Healing Word on him to get him back up, but one of the DM's monsters had a readied action to hit him if he got back up.  When he hit him, it knocked the Cleric out again.  So, we had one Cleric with one effective heal, and our other Cleric was failing death saves.
> 
> I ended up having to fight my way up to the Cleric to try and help him out.  Since I had a choice to either give him a potion (Standard action) or let a dice roll determine if he was stabilized, could spend a surge, or just flub the roll and do nothing (Standard action), I chose to feed him a potion.  Personally, I _really_ could've used Combat Medic in that fight, because I would've rather had a chance to roll with a minor and have the possibility of getting him up again, while still having my attack action left to cover his escape (probaly using the aptly named "Covering Attack").  As it was, all I could do was give him the potion and hope that no one got around me.
> 
> You should never underestimate the power of bad situations to force novel tactics, or underestimate the power of your players to see value in things that you as the DM do not.  Just because you guys think this feat is a bit weak does not mean that every player will...and some might even think it's a gift from the gods that will better allow them to fill their role at the table.




I agree, when I started reading the feats and hit combat medic I went, neat.  Yes, it certainly isn't the coolest feat, but I also like secure campsite and light step, so maybe I like interesting feats that help round out a character than pure unadulterated math feats.  I like those too, actually, but the game I'm dm'ing I've had times where my pcs could have used this feat to good usefulness.  Like in the Doc's example, the cleric was down.


----------



## Nail (Mar 24, 2009)

fissionessence said:


> I find it intriguing that in the original post, the only feats that were allowed were ones that seemed boring or useless to the OP. The ones that seemed good and/or useful weren't allowed.



I noticed that too.  

I know from plenty of experience that banning things I thought were "too good" often led to hurt feelings and less fun in-game.  It's tempting to ban stuff (like Battlerager Fighters?), but if it's ruining no player's fun, it's not worth the cost.

Easy to say, harder to practice.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 24, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Of all those feats, I think combat medic should have been a general "all uses of the heal skill become minor actions" and thrown out the +2. That would have made it a much better and more generally useful feat I feel.




That would be broken good. Your healers basically begin handing out saving throws to adjacent allies as minor actions, good luck making any condition stick more than 1 round. It also devalues powers that give saving throws.

Currently, it's essentially a skill focus feat with a small benefit. At low levels can be ok for warlords since they don't typically have a wisdom bonus, and can be challenged succeeding at heal checks. Once there is more access to healing and a higher level bonus to skills, it could be retrained.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 25, 2009)

The improved grab feat is very useful when combined with the garotte (and associated feats and powers) from art of the kill.


----------



## Jools (Mar 25, 2009)

mlund said:


> It is generally prudent to exercise power over the liberty of your peers only when absolutely necessary or at their direct request as an impartial arbiter of their specific disagreements. Since that's my guiding principle in the matter, I'll fully allow all the Feats from the PHB2 unless they *prove* themselves to have a negative impact on the fun of one or more members of my table.
> 
> Frankly, none of the Feats in the PHB2 really warp the game or bend the power-curve outside of the Expertise Feats, which are mainly an overdue  game-patch anyway.
> 
> - Marty Lund




 I couldn't agree with this more.  When I read the the original post about all the feats this guy wont allow and why, it made me imagine a really annoying DM. Perhaps wrongfully, but its certainly what comes to mind.


----------



## nightwyrm (Mar 25, 2009)

Mengu said:


> That would be broken good. Your healers basically begin handing out saving throws to adjacent allies as minor actions, good luck making any condition stick more than 1 round. It also devalues powers that give saving throws.
> 
> Currently, it's essentially a skill focus feat with a small benefit. At low levels can be ok for warlords since they don't typically have a wisdom bonus, and can be challenged succeeding at heal checks. Once there is more access to healing and a higher level bonus to skills, it could be retrained.




But in general, stabilizing is only done if there's no other way to heal the character. If you just stabilize a PC, he's not coming back into the fight. The combat medic feat seems very narrow and circumstantial. 

Maybe change it to "you can use the heal skill on a dying character as a minor action." instead of restricting it to using the stabilize option.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 25, 2009)

I think the +4 to bull rush or grab feats are a bit on the weak side, but if you combine them into one feat I think you have a solid feat there.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 25, 2009)

I like all the new Heroic feats for the reasons advocated above minus the Expertise feats, which are simply houseruled as a fixed bonus then banned.

If I was playing a non-healer I would definately pick up Combat Medic when I could fit in the feat.  Making it a minor action is a huge, huge buff to the Heal skill.


----------



## hvg3akaek (Mar 25, 2009)

I am not happy with the Goliath weapons training feat...it seems a very poor choice after the Dwarven and Eladrin ones, which do roughly the same thing, but also grant proficiency with superior weapons.


The other one I wasn't very happy with was "Blurring Claws".  I was making a Razorclaw druid, and thought that this feat would help his beast form attacks somewhat.  But, silly me - apparently, to use your blurring claws, you must be holding a weapon!  
So, with a sword or hammer in hand, I can get additional damage from my claws (???), but if I am attacking with a "melee touch" power (say, the druid's "Grasping Claws"), and, you know, using my claws on them, it has no effect...


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 25, 2009)

fissionessence said:


> I find it intriguing that in the original post, the only feats that were allowed were ones that seemed boring or useless to the OP. The ones that seemed good and/or useful weren't allowed.




'This feat makes a weapon no one would normally take into a useable weapon, allowing for concepts in superheroic fantasy characters using that weapon to be supported by the system.  BAN IT!'


----------



## Tuft (Mar 25, 2009)

Nail said:


> I noticed that too.
> 
> I know from plenty of experience that banning things I thought were "too good" often led to hurt feelings and less fun in-game.  It's tempting to ban stuff (like Battlerager Fighters?), but if it's ruining no player's fun, it's not worth the cost.
> 
> Easy to say, harder to practice.




Words of wisdom, indeed!


----------



## DogBackward (Mar 25, 2009)

If you wanna make the _"Improved ---"_ powers work, I suggest you add the following to the feats:


> *Improved Bull Rush*: If your Bull Rush is successful, you can Slide the target 1 square instead of Pushing it.
> _(Fling him aside makes just as much sense as push him forward.)_
> 
> *Improved Grab*: You also gain a +2 bonus to all defenses to resist a Grabbed target's attempt to escape your Grab.




I've always hated anything that's just a flat bonus. That's why I rarely take Skill Focus, and I'm not gonna take Expertise unless I'm using a build that requires it, like a low-stat or low-Prof. weapon wielder or the like. I much prefer feats that give you extra options with your existing abilities. Admittedly, there's not much you can do with Improved Grab that isn't overpowering, but adding the defense bonus makes it more worthwhile to try to keep someone grabbed, at least.

_(By the way, OP: D&D is about getting together with friends and having fun, not trying to find new and innovative ways to stifle creativity and drive your players away. You might wanna think on that before going ban-crazy.)_


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 25, 2009)

hvg3akaek said:


> I am not happy with the Goliath weapons training feat...it seems a very poor choice after the Dwarven and Eladrin ones, which do roughly the same thing, but also grant proficiency with superior weapons.




Roughly the same thing, but not -exactly- the same thing.  DWT and EWT give you access to a single weapon type in superior, and a static damage bonus to a non-strength giving class.  Most melee weapon fighters are Strength based, so the bonus makes up for the lack of strength at heroic tier.

On the other hand, the Goliath IS a Strength based class.  As well, the bonus gets larger as you enter paragon and epic tier; This feat isn't supposed to analogue DWT, it's supposed to be a racial 'Weapon Focus but Better' feat.  It gives Goliaths a reason to go after a Great Sword rather than a full blade, or a maul rather than a mordenkrad.


That said... do want me some Dwarven Mordenkrad Avenger.


----------



## MrBeens (Mar 25, 2009)

I'm curious if the OP has done this for all feats in the PHB and Martial power also, as long as with all of the powers.
How much of the game is left to your players?
The thing about feats is that they are a limited resource. I could understand being concerned about some of the mechanics of them if they just applied to everyone, but what is wrong with one guy being so well trained with a crossbow that he reloads it really fast - to do this he has to give up another equally useful feat like Toughness.


----------



## keterys (Mar 25, 2009)

It's interesting to see how many feats are not allowed. I'm used to more the other way - a few feats are chosen as banned and rest allowed.

I think Combat Medic would be good if it allowed you to trigger Second Wind on another character as a minor. At that point it would be very useful.


----------



## TheLordWinter (Mar 25, 2009)

Wow - there's a lot of harsh critique of the OP here. Allusions to him being "a really annoying DM" or "ban crazy." I gotta say, having come from the 3rd edition environment, I am also not letting things in whole-cloth. You don't need splat books to be creative, and your feat selection shouldn't determine how much fun you're having with your character, should it?

Once upon a time during 3rd edition, after playing with numerous ridiculous source books and in the thick of the edition, I decided I wanted to understand it a bit better by just playing a core game with my friends. Foremost they were livid at the very suggestion, and were adamant that we not do it. It ended with them saying they'd rather not play than play in just core.

So with that perspective in mind, banning now makes perfect sense to me. If later on something seems fine? Let it back in. While I'd disagree with some of the OP's choices on banned feats, the notion that he can choose what is and isn't allowed in his game? That I'll get behind. 

I for one am all for picking and choosing what races, classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, feats, rituals and even equipment I bring into my game world. It's my setting, shaped by the actions of the players, and so I feel entirely comfortable saying what props are and are not allowed there-in. The overall "fun" isn't going to be lessened by making do with less, the players will simply have to be more creative with what they have. At least, that's my two cents.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 25, 2009)

Well, there's two differences here.  The _Player's Handbook 2_ is not just "another splatbook", it _is_ a core book.  Technically Martial Power is too, but it's more of an outlier than the PHB 2.

Secondly, there's a difference between letting things and then deciding "Hmm, this isn't working out too great" and saying "Hmm, I don't like the looks of this.  Instant ban."

The DM that I play with tends to have a bit of a hair trigger about things too, and I'm constantly trying to talk to him about stuff.  For example, he was going to make Masterwork Armor super rare and _very_ hard to get a hold of...but he was just making this decision as a gut reaction to things like Godplate without ever seeing it in play or really looking at the math.  

Once I was able to show him the math and how Masterwork Heavy Armor essentially allows the Heavy Armor users to keep up with the DEX users, he understood why he was being too quick to take it out, and let it back in for the most part.  There's still some little "extra" things we might have to do to get it, but it's not longer stuff like "You want Tarrasque Plate?  Kill a Tarrasque." sort of stuff.

This is why being too quick with the banhammer can be a bad thing.  It's usually a lot better to let something in first, see how it works, and then take it out if it's OP.  If you want to let your players know that ahead of time, that's cool...but at least then they get a chance to try it and see if it works well in the system or not.


----------



## Lakoda (Mar 25, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Thoughts?



 Yes.

Coordinated Explosion - this is meant as a way help out when you HAVE to blast allies in order to hit the target.  You can't always (or at least don't have the time) to move everyone into position before you AoE them.  This is meant as a bit of a help to that. 
Distant Advantage - 4e has never made shooting into melee dangerous, as evident by the fact that allies don't provide cover.

Melee Training - I only this for DEX (and obviously the swordmage's specific one is still in).

Restful Healing - wow, really?!  this is the easiest feat ever, you rest and you get maxed healing, how hard is that.

Speed Loader - I'd allow it, I don't see it having much impact.

Surging Flame - I don't mind this that much, but what gets me is that the other damage types don't have one like it.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 25, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Well, there's two differences here.  The _Player's Handbook 2_ is not just "another splatbook", it _is_ a core book.  Technically Martial Power is too, but it's more of an outlier than the PHB 2.



I think that's kind of a spurious argument.  4e's PHB2 is no more "core" than 3e's PHB2 in the way you're describing.

I don't think "core" in this context means anything other than "It's largely setting-neutral, so drop it in anywhere!"  It's not core as in "It's essential for the game!"  And, by definition, if it's not essential, you don't lose anything if you get rid of it.  4e without splatbooks is a perfectly playable, complete game.

With that said, I agree that swinging the splatbook banhammer around prematurely doesn't help anyone.  I'd much rather give everything a shot, then decide for myself.  (Heck, I'm even doing this with Battlerager Vigor...) My players are easy to work with, and I'll let them know when something is experimental.

Also, as I said above, by my read nothing in PHB2 (apart from Expertise) is noticeably power-creepish. :shrug:  All I can say is that I'd allow all of it, and that I can't see a mechanical reason to ban any of it.  In fact, I see a lot of logic behind many of the existing feats - even Melee Training.  But if a group wants to ban stuff, it's their game - I might disagree and debate it, but if that's how they play, it's pretty much irrelevant.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I think that's kind of a spurious argument.  4e's PHB2 is no more "core" than 3e's PHB2 in the way you're describing.




I was responding specifically to TheLordWinter's comment of:



> Once upon a time during 3rd edition, after playing with numerous ridiculous source books and in the thick of the edition, I decided I wanted to understand it a bit better by just playing a core game with my friends.



I was just saying that there's a big difference between the PHB 2 and the "numerous" splat books he was talking about.  We're just starting this edition, not in the thick of it when there's been 20 splatbooks released.  Essentially, most of the player options right now consist of PHB 1 and 2, Martial Power and the Forgotten Realms Players Guide.  That's 4 books, plus whatever DDI content people want to bring in (although again, while it's _technically _core, I can understand being more wary of that than the actual books).


----------



## Nail (Mar 25, 2009)

TheLordWinter said:


> Once upon a time during 3rd edition, after playing with numerous ridiculous source books and in the thick of the edition, I decided I wanted to understand it a bit better by just playing a core game with my friends. Foremost they were livid at the very suggestion, and were adamant that we not do it. It ended with them saying they'd rather not play than play in just core.






TheLordWinter said:


> So with that perspective in mind, banning now makes perfect sense to me.



I'm not at all clear how the second paragraph follows from the first.  

Huh?

When you tried to ban things, your (potential) players rebelled....so now you think banning is a good idea?


----------



## Danceofmasks (Mar 25, 2009)

Maybe people don't mind not having stuff ... 'cos there's lots of stuff they can't have.
But they don't like stuff they already have get taken away.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Mar 25, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> *Distant Advantage*
> You gain combat advantage against flanked enemies at a range (your allies can flank for you).




There's a problem with this feat that nobody seems to be noticing yet: It makes it easier to flank with a ranged weapon than with a melee weapon.

Now, I understand the feat. You can't actually flank at range with this feat- but you DO gain combat advantage against a flanked foe, no matter where you are in regards to the enemy and your allies. If you were in melee, however, if your enemy is medium-sized, and two allies are on opposite sides of the enemy, it's going to be impossible for you to flank without another ally. And yet the ranger can be sitting in the back getting CA all he wants.

Anyone else notice this?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 25, 2009)

Lakoda said:


> Melee Training - I only this for DEX (and obviously the swordmage's specific one is still in).



Can you elaborate why?  Is it mostly for flavor?  Kind of an homage to Weapon Finesse?

Personally, I like the feat.  I look at it in one of two ways - either (say) a Paladin has trained enough with his attacks to become as competent with basic attacks as he is with smites; or else he's learned to enhance his basic attacks with divine energy, to make them more powerful.



> Surging Flame - I don't mind this that much, but what gets me is that the other damage types don't have one like it.



I don't know that it would be a good feat for any other element type...  Fire is the most common resistance, other than necrotic.  So, (1) fire specialists need this feat more than other elemental specialists need a similar feat; and (2) it's less likely to be a wasted feat for fire specialists, since they can reasonably expect to run into a fire-resistant creature.

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 25, 2009)

TheLordWinter said:


> So with that perspective in mind, banning now makes perfect sense to me. If later on something seems fine? Let it back in.



Won't happen.  There will never be a "later on" when something "seems fine" if you've banned the material.

Unless your game consists of a heavy side game of players coming to you to petition you to reallow the things you ban.


----------



## odhen (Mar 25, 2009)

Lakoda said:


> Coordinated Explosion - this is meant as a way help out when you HAVE to blast allies in order to hit the target.  You can't always (or at least don't have the time) to move everyone into position before you AoE them.  This is meant as a bit of a help to that.




Yeah, it helps you hitting the enemies in this situation, but it also gives you a better chance to hit your allies.  It's great for classes that have a lot of bursts and blasts that help/don't affect allies, but for a wizard it's a bit iffy.

...

I'm about to start DMing my first 4e game in a few weeks, and I don't see any reason to ban or disallow anything in here.  Even the Expertise feats...but my group is a little different.  Hell, _I_ didn't even give Implement Expertise a second thought when I was reading through them...a +1 doesn't seem that big to me, but only being on one side fo the screen so far I could be wrong.  Honestly, though, (and I'm aware my group is an exception) I would be surprised if more than one of my players took the expertise feats.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> And, by definition, if it's not essential, you don't lose anything if you get rid of it.




I do not concur.


----------



## Nail (Mar 25, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Well, there's two differences here.  The _Player's Handbook 2_ is not just "another splatbook", it _is_ a core book.  Technically Martial Power is too, but it's more of an outlier than the PHB 2.






Obryn said:


> I think that's kind of a spurious argument.  4e's PHB2 is no more "core" than 3e's PHB2 in the way you're describing.






Doctor Proctor said:


> I was just saying that there's a big difference between the PHB 2 and the "numerous" splat books he was talking about.  We're just starting this edition, not in the thick of it when there's been 20 splatbooks released.



No, I think Obryn has the right of it.

4e no longer has the "core" concept.  There is no real "core" anymore - it was a poor marketing decision by WotC in 3e.  Now there are just Numbered versions of the PH (and MM, and DMG, I'll bet).  

So saying that "PH2 isn't core, and so may be freely banned" (or saying the opposite), isn't a compelling argument.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 25, 2009)

Many RPG systems I have played over the years, including 3e have been poorly balanced and really expected the DM to act as an arbiter of balance in their games. This is not the case in 4e.

I am playing in three different 4e games. All WotC material is allowed and we have seen no balance issues with anything.

There frankly is no need to ban anything unless you are specifically excluding something for flavor reasons. Such as your homebrew world not having tieflings or something.


----------



## Nail (Mar 25, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> I am playing in three different 4e games. All WotC material is allowed and we have seen no balance issues with anything.



That's a pretty strong statement!

...and it's predicated on having a wide diversity of classes, feats, items, and players in each of your three games.  Is that true?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 25, 2009)

Nail said:


> That's a pretty strong statement!
> 
> ...and it's predicated on having a wide diversity of classes, feats, items, and players in each of your three games. Is that true?



I'm not him, but I am also in three games and have seen no balance problems.  We have used nearly every class in the game, and allow all feats.  None of the groups has a ton of access to magic item customization (the guidelines are being followed, so there's just not that much cash around in comparison to need), and the variety of player types is a little low since one game is 100% new and casual players except for me as DM.  Also, the highest level group is level 10.  So my *feel* for game balance only goes that high at this juncture.

There have been one or two WOAH moments, but they've been relatively bland in comparison to the sorts of WOAH moments I've had in 3e.  

For example, the battlerager vigor fighter is really, really durable in combats against lots of weaker foes.  

The warden felt weak at level 1 because she didn't pick toughness and almost everyone else in the group did, creating a mismatch with her expectations: she expected to be the most durable in the group, but with a low armor class and hit points about equal to everyone else, she was not.  Until she advanced a level and took toughness and gained 7 hit points for leveling up.

I feel like our fey pact warlock is weak, but part of that is his lack of tactical play.  He took powers that let him do some crazy hit and run attacks, but he's so worried about getting hurt that he never actually does them.  Tactically, he should be moving into melee reach and flanking with the warden, gaining prime shot and flanking bonuses, then protecting himself with eyebite and teleporting to safety if a cursed foe dies.  In practice, he hides in the back line, doesn't get prime shot, doesn't get flanking, and ends the day with all of his healing surges and without having done a lot.

Our paladin has some issues with athletics, acrobatics, and being grabbed.  She's a charisma paladin with a 12 strength, so her athletics and acrobatics are pretty terrible.  She recently got grabbed by an icy grasp cast by a higher level spellcaster.  We realized after a round or two that she could only make a high enough athletics check to escape if she rolled a 19.  With two rolls a round it eventually happened, but that was pretty lame.  And of course the spellcaster just tried to re-grab her.  The party (this is my highly tactical group) stopped that from happening by dazing the spellcaster and walling him up in a wall of fire, meaning he had to choose between spending his single action to leave the fire and survive, or to sustain the grab.  He chose life, and then ironically the paladin killed him.

I can also imagine some ways to build characters that aren't very good, such as a greatweapon fighter who doesn't take any defensive or healing class abilities.  But overall, I haven't seen any meaningful problems yet.

There are one or two I anticipate at high levels, and I'm a "expertise is a must-have" believer, but that's my experience so far.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 25, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> I am playing in three different 4e games. All WotC material is allowed and we have seen no balance issues with anything.




Like Nail underlined, most balance issues I see stem from players. You can have two fighters in the same group:

1. Tiefling greatweapon fighter with 17 strength, wielding heavy warpick, has Ferocious Rebuke, using Footwork Lure (+6 vs AC 1d12+3), or heaven forbid Sure Strike (+8 vs AC 1d12).

2. Dwarf Battlerager with 17 strength, 18 con, wielding waraxe, has dwarven weapon training, using Brash Strike (+7 vs AC 1d12+11), and 4 temp hitpoints from vigor every time he is hit in melee.

These characters are not balanced against each other in any way, shape, or form, because the first player did not have system mastery, and the second player knows every nook and cranny like the back of his hand.

As a DM it's ok to eliminate some of these elements in a diverse group to make sure one character does not outshine another too much. House rules are not the devil, especially if they are merely in the form of excluding some options from the game.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 25, 2009)

So far, I've been very impressed with WotC's balance.

I have outright banned only two items - the boring ones that give +2 to every damage roll you make and are way too low-level for such a perk.

I put the Battlerager on my Watch List - that is, I'll watch it and see if it's broken if anyone wants to try one during play.

And I've houseruled Expertise, so there are no feats, and PCs just get +1/+2/+3 to-hit with everything at 5th/15th/25th level.

I was concerned that Sorcerers would outperform Warlocks in every respect, but on a readthrough, that doesn't seem to be an issue.  They actually do different stuff, and it's different enough that I think the two classes will play very differently.

Other than that...  Well, I think it's pretty impressive to have this much stuff, and have all of it be useful, still.

-O


----------



## Nail (Mar 25, 2009)

...what about the boring feats that give you +1 damage?  Is there a cut-off between +1 damage and +2 damage?  Really?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I put the Battlerager on my Watch List - that is, I'll watch it and see if it's broken if anyone wants to try one during play.



From my experience, the battlerager is most powerful at level 1.  His temporary hit point ability is frontloaded. At level 1 he gets his con modifier in temporary hit points when he's struck in melee.  At level 10, he gets... his con modifier in temporary hit points when he's struck in melee.  His con modifier has increased by 1, yes, but the typical damage of a hit has more than doubled.

Come to think of it, we had a similar experience with the rogue.  At level 1, our human rogue was sneak attacking for a net total of 3d8+6.  By level 5, it was 3d8+7, but monster hit points had about doubled.

There are just a few classes that are frontloaded a bit.  I didn't find them frontloaded enough to make other players unhappy, though.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 25, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> From my experience, the battlerager is most powerful at level 1.  His temporary hit point ability is frontloaded. At level 1 he gets his con modifier in temporary hit points when he's struck in melee.  At level 10, he gets... his con modifier in temporary hit points when he's struck in melee.  His con modifier has increased by 1, yes, but the typical damage of a hit has more than doubled.
> 
> Come to think of it, we had a similar experience with the rogue.  At level 1, our human rogue was sneak attacking for a net total of 3d8+6.  By level 5, it was 3d8+7, but monster hit points had about doubled.
> 
> There are just a few classes that are frontloaded a bit.  I didn't find them frontloaded enough to make other players unhappy, though.



Now, *that* is a very interesting observation.

Since I'm starting new PCs at level 7 or 8 nowadays, I'll keep that in mind!

-O


----------



## Herschel (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Can you elaborate why? Is it mostly for flavor? Kind of an homage to Weapon Finesse?
> 
> Personally, I like the feat. I look at it in one of two ways - either (say) a Paladin has trained enough with his attacks to become as competent with basic attacks as he is with smites; or else he's learned to enhance his basic attacks with divine energy, to make them more powerful.





I can see only allowing it for Dex, Int and Wis.

Charisma: My sword really likes me, so it swings better.

Constitution: I'm healthier/more durable than my sword and it respects that.


----------



## jeffwik (Mar 25, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Of all those feats, I think combat medic should have been a general "all uses of the heal skill become minor actions" and thrown out the +2. That would have made it a much better and more generally useful feat I feel.
> 
> Improved grab and improved bullrush I feel are actually decent feats: attacks that move foes or eat their actions are typically daily or encounter powers, and if you only need to move a foe a single square, or delay him for a half round it can often be a waste to use a limited resource that would fling him 5 or stun him. Getting a +4 to make those actions more certain is a very good thing if you use them a lot.




Bull rushing and grabbing become less and less viable options as you go up in level, because you don't add in any bonuses from weapons or implements.  So a 1st level character's Str vs. Fortitude attack is maybe +3 or +4, not unlike a 1st level wizard targeting a NAD, but at 30th level there's a disparity of +5 or +6; the monster's Fort goes up higher than the PC's strength... Actually more than that what with the issues that Weapon Expertise is supposed to address.  

I'd rewrite Improved Grab and Improved Bull Rush as granting a scaling bonus; +1 up to 5th level, +2 up to 10th level, +4 up to 15th level, +5 up to 20th level, +7 up to 25th level, and finally +8, so your demigod fighter (Strength bonus something like +25 without the feat) has a chance at shoving Graz'zt (Fort defense 45) without a natural 20.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 25, 2009)

Melee Training: Not overpowered. All it does is bring a basic attack up to the level of being a baseline useful attack. In almost all instances, your class at-wills will do more damage or have a more dramatic impact on the game. Personally, I took it with my dwarven wrath invoker because it just feels wrong to have a drawf that isn't smashing orc heads in with his hammer. 

Implements/Weapon Expertise: In 3.5, the sweet spot for D&D was levels 5 to 9. In 4E, the sweet spot is where the math doesn't break down - levels 1 to ~14. After that, the impact of the +ability mod to attack powers makes everything too wonky. These feats are fine in levels 1 to 15 - not essential yet, and still useful. You may go three or four combats without it making any impact before level 15. That isn't overpoweed in my book.


----------



## Lauberfen (Mar 25, 2009)

Let's move on from the insanity or not of banning feats wholesale, and discuss feats 
which are awesome.

Distant advantage is very cool, and makes great sense (someone distracted by two allies will be more vulnerable than someone who knows he's got a rogue standing behind them).

Melee training is generally cool and moderately useful. It will mean My rogue can charge effectively, or utilise commanders strike. It could also lead to silliness.

Improved majestic word is cool, perhaps a little too good. Temporary hit points make more sense thasn healing for a bard.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 25, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I can see only allowing it for Dex, Int and Wis.
> 
> Charisma: My sword really likes me, so it swings better.
> 
> Constitution: I'm healthier/more durable than my sword and it respects that.



So neither of the other explanations works for you?

"I practiced really hard, drank my milk, and ate my wheaties, and now I can hit with swords as well as I can my smites/blasts"

"I can use my divine/arcane/pact energy/mojo to lend power to my basic melee attacks, and make it more likely I hit hard."



-O


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 25, 2009)

UltimaGabe said:


> There's a problem with [Distant Advantage] that nobody seems to be noticing yet: It makes it easier to flank with a ranged weapon than with a melee weapon.
> 
> Now, I understand the feat. You can't actually flank at range with this feat- but you DO gain combat advantage against a flanked foe, no matter where you are in regards to the enemy and your allies. If you were in melee, however, if your enemy is medium-sized, and two allies are on opposite sides of the enemy, it's going to be impossible for you to flank without another ally. And yet the ranger can be sitting in the back getting CA all he wants.
> 
> Anyone else notice this?



Hell yeah, I noticed it!  We just levelled up and my girlfriend's artful dodger rogue is fully planning on exploiting it!

If the fighter is flanking a baddie with the party's other rogue, she's intending to walk right up and used ranged attacks to deliberately provoke OAs.  All three PCs are adjacent to the target and gaining combat advantage, and the fighter is likely going to get an extra whack or two in from his mark.  Good stuff all around. 
-blarg


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 25, 2009)

Yeah, one of the "explanations" for CON, if you need one, has to do with endurance.  Remember, attacks in a round can just as easily be thought of as a flurry of several attacks over the course of your, with one of them connecting.  In case of someone who takes Melee Training: CON, it could be thought of as someone who attacks so many times that they tire out the other guy, causing him to drop his guard.

The same works for DEX actually, except that it's perhaps a flurry of attacks that's so fast that some get through and hurt the guy.

As for the CHA one, I think Obryn hit the nail on the head.  The only people who would usually go Melee Training:CHA would be Chaladins, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers, as that's their primary stat.  Since they're already to an extent channeling something to help them attack, this feat would just represent them channeling that power for basic melee attacks, instead of just their class attacks.  It's not that much of a stretch, and it's definitely not "I'm so good looking, I hit you."


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 25, 2009)

I've been waiting for Melee training. You use your best natural abililty to increase o melee basic attack. I love it.

Str: Muscle power (I'm strong. I can swing hard and fast.)
Con: Stamina (I can attack with all my might ALL DAY and never tire. Hold back? Pbbt)
Dex: Muscle Control (I aim for your heart. If'n you don't parry my attack, I'm gonna hit your heart. I don't miss)
Int: Combat Wit (I see that when you attack, your recovery to a defensive position is slow. You leave yourself open)
Wis: Combat sight (The left side or your armor is open when you swing)
Cha: Unpredictablity/courage (ROAR!)

Distant advantage is very nice. Crossbow SA shots to people who don't have time to pay attention to you.

Imp Grab and Bullrush I like but I'd prefer if they scaled by tier. +2/+4/+6.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Mar 25, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> "I'm so good looking, I hit you."



But that's so awesome!
Fabio flicks hair, spontaneous sparkles and background music distracts, Fabio slashes.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 25, 2009)

Danceofmasks said:


> But that's so awesome!
> Fabio flicks hair, spontaneous sparkles and background music distracts, Fabio slashes.




While some of the other posters find it cheesy, I do think it would be funny to think of it that way.  Like some Orc is charging at the Wizard and as he's going by the Paladin he takes of his helmet and flashes his pearly whites at the Orc.  He's so distracted by how attractive this particular human is, and what nice teeth he has, that he literally runs right into his outstretched axe.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> "I can use my divine/arcane/pact energy/mojo to lend power to my basic melee attacks, and make it more likely I hit hard."
> -O




Charisma - is your connection to the divine (it literally means gifts from god), the divine is all about guiding people so ofcourse it lends your attack accuracy if you let it .. and the power of your emotional spirit... in Karate you learn you have to use spirit to lend true strength to your attacks and Charisma as the second half of will power is definitely about spirit.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Mar 25, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> He's so distracted by how attractive this particular human is, and what nice teeth he has, that he literally runs right into his outstretched axe.



Orcs might consider showing teeth a sign of aggression, but yeah .. that's hilarious.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 25, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Now, *that* is a very interesting observation.
> 
> Since I'm starting new PCs at level 7 or 8 nowadays, I'll keep that in mind!
> 
> -O




The temp hp only works against physical attacks, IIRC.

So if you want to gimp the rager, simply use bursts or blasts (neither of which trigger the temp hp) or tack on the status effects (which bypass hp altogether).


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 25, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> ... in Karate...


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 25, 2009)

Minigiant said:


> I've been waiting for Melee training. You use your best natural abililty to increase o melee basic attack. I love it.
> 
> Str: Muscle power (I'm strong. I can swing hard and fast.)
> Con: Stamina (I can attack with all my might ALL DAY and never tire. Hold back? Pbbt)
> ...




I didnt see this one before answering below, I like it too.. 

*Intelligence* also means mental speed and decisiveness combine as well as pattern recogntion and the ability to draw conclusions based on those fast.

*Charisma,* means gift from god and as the stat representing your relationship with the divine, you allow the divine to guide your hand. and yes courage or spirit/chi as the martial arts teach is a fundamental ingredient of making an attack which "counts" it lacks power without that emotiional surge.

Your explanation of CON is good. I had just come to the conclusion con=stamina - slow twitch muscles and strengh = fast twitch muscles
in otherwords ... Fortitude can make sense to be based on either even though most folks think its only con.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 26, 2009)

Runestar said:


> The temp hp only works against physical attacks, IIRC.
> 
> So if you want to gimp the rager, simply use bursts or blasts (neither of which trigger the temp hp) or tack on the status effects (which bypass hp altogether).




Physical attacks has nothing to do with it: it's just that the rager doesn't get his temp hp against anything other than melee attacks.

That said: the problem isn't how durable the rager is: it's how overall effective he is _when compared with other characters_. And there is no denying that the rager is much, much more durable vs melee attacks than any other character, while being simply more durable (thanks to the only source of stacking temporary hitpoints in the entire game) vs everything else. In exchange for this large advantage, he loses a +1 to hit.

As for my previous suggestion for combat medic? Ack! I did indeed mean to still restrict the proposed benefit of the feat to unconscious and dying characters, not hand out saves against ongoing effects willy-nilly.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 26, 2009)

blargney the second said:


>




Snicker, so how does fresh water eel relate ;-)


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 26, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Physical attacks has nothing to do with it: it's just that the rager doesn't get his temp hp against anything other than melee attacks. /QUOTE]
> 
> right good old fashion bow work will lay them as low as everybody else.


----------



## hvg3akaek (Mar 26, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Roughly the same thing, but not -exactly- the same thing.  DWT and EWT give you access to a single weapon type in superior, and a static damage bonus to a non-strength giving class.  Most melee weapon fighters are Strength based, so the bonus makes up for the lack of strength at heroic tier.



Nope.  Dwarven gives you prof with hammers and axes.  With AV1, it gives you four new, shiny superior weapon proficiencies.  If Goliath gave you superior 2H weapons, it would also give 4.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 26, 2009)

jeffwik said:


> Bull rushing and grabbing become less and less viable options as you go up in level, because you don't add in any bonuses from weapons or implements.  So a 1st level character's Str vs. Fortitude attack is maybe +3 or +4, not unlike a 1st level wizard targeting a NAD, but at 30th level there's a disparity of +5 or +6; the monster's Fort goes up higher than the PC's strength... Actually more than that what with the issues that Weapon Expertise is supposed to address.
> 
> I'd rewrite Improved Grab and Improved Bull Rush as granting a scaling bonus; +1 up to 5th level, +2 up to 10th level, +4 up to 15th level, +5 up to 20th level, +7 up to 25th level, and finally +8, so your demigod fighter (Strength bonus something like +25 without the feat) has a chance at shoving Graz'zt (Fort defense 45) without a natural 20.




You could try a base +4 bonus going up to +6 at 11th level, and +8 at 21st level.  

This has the added benefit of being what the feat actually does.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 26, 2009)

I see no problem with Charisma being used with weapon attacks in a game where, for bards and paladins, Charisma is often used with weapon attacks.  Charisma hasn't been 'good-lookingness' in D&D since 2nd edition.


----------



## infocynic (Mar 26, 2009)

The other player in my group who DMs and I are going over the entire list of feats from 4e together, looking for bizarre combos, feats we can give out freely as character development/roleplaying bonuses that won't unbalance combat/skill challenges, and anything that we both feel is just downright broken. 

So far we haven't found much in that last category (we're banning Expertise, although more accurately we're giving it freely, and banning it was necessary pre-errata), and I bet if I looked, 75% of the stuff that's banned is crap from Dragon that was obviously not thought out.


----------

