Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 UnknownMourner Jan 12, 2010 10:32:15	Is there a list of feats for PHB 3 yet? Our group is finding there are about a dozen or so core feats that are broad plusses you'd be silly not to take, and the rest are terrible in comparrison. Anything with the whiff of "flavor" about it is pretty terrible. +1 to hit on a Tuesday during a full moon if you have combat advantage vs. +1 to hit all the time isn't really much of a choice.
#2 Herrozerro Jan 12, 2010 10:34:21	Could you actually post a "flavor" feat you have issues with?  Your example is silly and misleading.
#3 nightwalker450 Jan 12, 2010 10:39:42	Nimble Blade is what he is actually referring to, Warforged Tactics is another.  And yes they are all pointless next to Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise.  The bonus is after you have expertise, they all stack with expertise. That's all I'll say.
#4 Herrozerro Jan 12, 2010 10:44:28	I will agree that a flat out passive bonus is the best but the so called useless flavor feats all have their place.  Of course I am not going to take Warforged tactics on a warforged wizard. but a fighter or warlord?  Sign me up! Those "flavor" feats are going to be useless unless you use them in conjunction with tactics and situations you know you are going to be in.
#5 mouthymerc Jan 12, 2010 11:16:20	Really?  I always found the situational feats much more interesting than the straight up passive ones.  Setting up those situations always turned into fun role-playing for me.  They seem to bring out the character more.  That's not to say that feats like Expertise and such do not have their place, but I like stuff like Against All Odds or Coordinated Explosion.  I like to look for synergy.
#6 CCS Jan 12, 2010 12:07:43	Is there a list of feats for PHB 3 yet? Our group is finding there are about a dozen or so core feats that are broad plusses you'd be silly not to take, and the rest are terrible in comparrison. Anything with the whiff of "flavor" about it is pretty terrible.   ? What does your question really have to do with the rest of what you wrote? Anyways, if your having trouble with alot of the flavorfull feats it might be a direct result of your playstyle.  Remember, the books have to be written to accomodate all sorts of players/ideas/styles.
#7 masterfat78 Jan 12, 2010 12:22:28	For once I can agree with CCS.
#8 Darth_Caffeineus Jan 12, 2010 12:38:55	Arguably passive feats like weapon/implement focus are the "best" in that you can be guaranteed to use them every combat. However the amount of combat in a game varies from group to group, so for a particular game a situational feat might be more useful (especially if the campaign theme emphases that situation). For instance if you are playing a political intrigue game, with infrequent combat than linguist and skill focus diplomacy are way more useful feats than weapon/implement focus. I always saw the focus feats as a way to help out characters that have a race that does not give a +2 to their main stat, not something that all characters must take or you will suck. I just don't buy that you need these feats in order to stay effective against level appropriate encounters, unless of course you have a party of Leroy Jenkins clones incapable of even the most basic strategical thinking.
#9 scipio Jan 12, 2010 12:56:06	Nimble Blade is what he is actually referring to, Warforged Tactics is another.   I always saw Nimble Blade as the go to feat for rogues.  Combat Advantage with a light blade is what they do, not some rare occurrence.
#10 lofgren Jan 12, 2010 13:31:07	Nimble Blade is what he is actually referring to, Warforged Tactics is another.   I always saw Nimble Blade as the go to feat for rogues.  Combat Advantage with a light blade is what they do, not some rare occurrence. Sure, but every once in a while he'll have to make an attack without combat advantage, and at that point nimble blade won't get him squat, whereas the +1 from expertise will still be there.  Plus nimble blade doesn't scale by tier.  If you're taking nimble blade before you're taking light blade expertise, you're taking a less useful feat before a more useful feat that does the same thing. Of course, a light blade wielding rogue should almost certainly take both.
#11 veok Jan 12, 2010 13:34:12	Nimble Blade is what he is actually referring to, Warforged Tactics is another.   I always saw Nimble Blade as the go to feat for rogues.  Combat Advantage with a light blade is what they do, not some rare occurrence. Sure, but every once in a while he'll have to make an attack without combat advantage, and at that point nimble blade won't get him squat, whereas the +1 from expertise will still be there.  Plus nimble blade doesn't scale by tier.  If you're taking nimble blade before you're taking light blade expertise, you're taking a less useful feat before a more useful feat that does the same thing. Of course, a light blade wielding rogue should almost certainly take both. Exactly -- Nimble Blade has a place as a feat because it *stacks*.
#12 lofgren Jan 12, 2010 13:38:21	Nimble Blade is what he is actually referring to, Warforged Tactics is another.   I always saw Nimble Blade as the go to feat for rogues.  Combat Advantage with a light blade is what they do, not some rare occurrence. Sure, but every once in a while he'll have to make an attack without combat advantage, and at that point nimble blade won't get him squat, whereas the +1 from expertise will still be there.  Plus nimble blade doesn't scale by tier.  If you're taking nimble blade before you're taking light blade expertise, you're taking a less useful feat before a more useful feat that does the same thing. Of course, a light blade wielding rogue should almost certainly take both. Exactly -- Nimble Blade has a place as a feat because it *stacks*. I don't think anybody is complaining that it doesn't have its place, just that the more interesting feat is less useful than a boring +1.
#13 Tectorman Jan 12, 2010 14:28:23	I'm predicting a "Ranged Training" feat.  Same as the Melee Training feat, except it applies to the RBA.
#14 sjmcc13 Jan 12, 2010 14:40:13	I'm predicting a "Ranged Training" feat.  Same as the Melee Training feat, except it applies to the RBA. I really don't see that coming, as most weapon classes use either STR (Heavy Thrown) or DEX (the rest of the ranged weapons). and pretty much every non weapon class already has decent ranged (basic) attack options. Melee training is more useful for OAs and charges, Ranged would only be really good for Warlord/leader powers.
#15 Tectorman Jan 12, 2010 14:43:12	I'm referring to the Bards, the Artificers, and the Seekers that might like to make RBAs with the tools they're using.  Sure, Str and Dex classes may be fine and classes with "you may use this as a ranged basic attack" At-Will powers are good to go, but there are other classes out there.
#16 morvannon Jan 12, 2010 14:48:03	I'm referring to the Bards, the Artificers, and the Seekers that might like to make RBAs with the tools they're using.  Sure, Str and Dex classes may be fine and classes with "you may use this as a ranged basic attack" At-Will powers are good to go, but there are other classes out there. Seekers do have a "use as RBA" at-will, Stinging Swarm.
#17 lofgren Jan 12, 2010 14:59:07	I'm referring to the Bards, the Artificers, and the Seekers that might like to make RBAs with the tools they're using.  Sure, Str and Dex classes may be fine and classes with "you may use this as a ranged basic attack" At-Will powers are good to go, but there are other classes out there. Seekers do have a "use as RBA" at-will, Stinging Swarm. They also have DEX as a secondary stat, a lot of RBA encounter and even dailies if I recall.  Also I predict there will be at least one more at-will given how often they will be called upon to make ranged basic attacks thanks to their class feature. It's a bigger issue for artificers, although I can't say I have ever noticed that it was a problem for the artificer I play with.
#18 salla Jan 12, 2010 15:13:47	Eh.  Boring and interesting are subjective.
#19 Tectorman Jan 12, 2010 15:15:33	I'm referring to the Bards, the Artificers, and the Seekers that might like to make RBAs with the tools they're using.  Sure, Str and Dex classes may be fine and classes with "you may use this as a ranged basic attack" At-Will powers are good to go, but there are other classes out there. Seekers do have a "use as RBA" at-will, Stinging Swarm. They also have DEX as a secondary stat, a lot of RBA encounter and even dailies if I recall.  Also I predict there will be at least one more at-will given how often they will be called upon to make ranged basic attacks thanks to their class feature. It's a bigger issue for artificers, although I can't say I have ever noticed that it was a problem for the artificer I play with. Okay, I missed the Seeker having a "use as RBA" At-Will. On the other hand, even having a Str or Dex secondary stat doesn't IMO qualify as a decent fallback position because while a character has every incentive to bump up his attack stat at every opportunity, that incentive doesn't pass on to secondary stats.  A Warlord (even a Resourceful Warlord) might bump his Int or Cha stats one at a time (so that by 30th level, he's added +6 Str, +3 Int, and +3 Cha), and any character with either Str or Dex (or both) as a secondary stat might be doing the same thing.  And while I'm fine with passing up on one luxury game ability for another luxury game ability, you should never be passing up basic functionality for a luxury game ability.  Which is exactly what an Artificer is having to do if he has to keep either his Dex or his Str at basic level-appropriate accuracy just for the RBA.  Again, same thing even if Str or Dex (or both) are a class's secondary stats).
#20 mellored Jan 12, 2010 15:39:17	Still, i don't see much reason NOT to have a RBA training.  It might not be usefull for many builds, but it would be a fun feat.
#21 lofgren Jan 12, 2010 16:56:57	On the other hand, even having a Str or Dex secondary stat doesn't IMO qualify as a decent fallback position because while a character has every incentive to bump up his attack stat at every opportunity, that incentive doesn't pass on to secondary stats.  A Warlord (even a Resourceful Warlord) might bump his Int or Cha stats one at a time (so that by 30th level, he's added +6 Str, +3 Int, and +3 Cha), and any character with either Str or Dex (or both) as a secondary stat might be doing the same thing. Making ranged basic attacks is hardly basic functionality for any class except for a seeker.  The ability to make ranged basic attacks is absolutely a luxury for every other class.  In fact, tha ability to make melee basic attacks isn't even really basic functionality except for defenders.  Melee training isn't there because melee basic attacks are basic functionality – it's there so that warlords aren't gimped by parties that do not have any STR primary classes.  Melee-oriented classes for whom MBAs are important are exactly like the seeker: they have strength as a primary or secondary (rogues, fighters, paladins, clerics, swordmages, TWF rangers).  CHA paladins make less effective MBAs, which is why their mark is so much more effective.  Dodger rogues were given many more options for moving away from the enemy safely, so that they wouldn't end their turn in MBA range.  Archer rangers and WIS clerics shouldn't be in melee range anyway, if they can help it.  Even swordmages had features and powers for builds that did not rely on melee basic attacks, which made intelligent blademaster completely optional. But one thing that is basic functionality is AC, and there is a pretty well established pattern with AC (and NADs to a lesser degree): every class will receive INT or DEX as either primary or secondary, or it will receive some other means of boosting AC (heavy armor, warden class features, barbarian agility).  With NADs, any class that doesn't get an ability score from all three groupings will receive a helpful bonus (shield proficiency or an an extra +1). If for some reason you build a character who relies on ranged basic attacks for basic functionality, then you should probably assume that you're going to have to pump DEX or STR.  I'd have told you the same thing about STR before the melee training feats (which I do not like, personally).  The ability to make ranged basic attacks is clearly not intended to be something that every class has equal access to.  Of course, the ability to make melee basic attacks was clearly not intended to be something that every class had equal access to, so they changed it. Furthermore, if ever there was a class that relied on melee basic attacks or ranged basic attacks for basic functionality, but was not afforded a method for keeping that attack stat decent as a basic class feature should they choose to do so, that would be very bad class design, and a ranged training feat would not be an appropriate fix (as melee training is not an appropriate fix for any class that needs to make MBAs but does not have STR as a primary or secondary stat).
#22 warrl Jan 13, 2010 0:30:13	In fact, tha ability to make melee basic attacks isn't even really basic functionality except for defenders. I'd say it's basic functionality for any melee combatant. Between opportunity attacks and various other sources of extra attacks... That said, though, I agree with you that spending a (scarce!) feat on melee combat traininge a rather hackish fix for a problem in class design. A problem that would be better fixed by something that effectively altered the class design, such as a new class-feature power that is no more (perhaps less) effective than the normal at-wills and can be used at will as a basic attack.
#23 LordofKhyber Jan 13, 2010 11:30:28	I give Weapon/Implement Expertise/Melee Training as a free feat to my PC's at level 1 and at every 5 levels after that. At paragon, paragon defenses can be chosen instead. Works pretty well.
#24 lofgren Jan 13, 2010 11:37:19	In fact, tha ability to make melee basic attacks isn't even really basic functionality except for defenders. I'd say it's basic functionality for any melee combatant. Between opportunity attacks and various other sources of extra attacks... The ability to make those reliably isn't basic functionality.  It's a nice bonus, except for a few certain classes – fighters and swordmages, maybe paladins.  All of those are fully capable of making melee basics without taking a feat (or have build alternatives to make the melee basic attack less important, in the case of paladins or swordmages).
#25 Marandahir Jan 13, 2010 22:29:14	In fact, tha ability to make melee basic attacks isn't even really basic functionality except for defenders. I'd say it's basic functionality for any melee combatant. Between opportunity attacks and various other sources of extra attacks... The ability to make those reliably isn't basic functionality.  It's a nice bonus, except for a few certain classes – fighters and swordmages, maybe paladins.  All of those are fully capable of making melee basics without taking a feat (or have build alternatives to make the melee basic attack less important, in the case of paladins or swordmages). Ensnaring Swordmages still want Melee Basic attacks, but don't use Strength.  Protecting Paladins focus on Charisma, but aren't as implementy as Virtuous Paladins, so they will still want MBA. Frankly, any class that doesn't have Str as the major ability score isn't going to be able to compete with the MBAs of Str-primary classes, without Melee Training.  Even if they have Str as a minor, they'll still be weaker. It's a viable option, even for Assault Swordmages, Protecting Paladins, and definitely for Valorous Bards.   I'm sure Prescient Bards and ranged-weapon Artificers will want a Ranged Training feat, and Eagle Shamans, Seekers, and this up-and-coming Warlord build probably won't find it too shabby, either.