Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Hippolyte Dec 28, 2011 6:33:08	I would like to see the designers go through all the feats and strengthen any which are obviously inferior or even useless. Likewise for all the powers: especially for weak classes like the Seeker and Binder. Likewise for all the items: perhaps lower the level for many of the items which only have a daily power: at least someone might get one on the cheap. We have thousands of feats and hundreds of items, but there is a certain percentage of them which are never taken because they are so obviously inferior to the better ones. I think that this would be a better solution than weakening (nerfing) the good things we have. It would also mitigate much of the supposed need for a Fifth Edition.
#2 GloriousDemon Dec 28, 2011 14:51:24	Example:  Why have a feat which negates armor penalties to Str skills or Dex skills when there's a feat that takes care of both?
#3 olfactatron Dec 29, 2011 13:18:24	I agree.  There needs to be a culling of obsolete material.
#4 theoucrew Dec 29, 2011 16:02:08	Ot at least a "hide" button in the character builder, so I can get rid of feats and powers that will never, ever be used.
#5 IxidorRS Dec 29, 2011 16:53:09	There's a number of feats that are not taken commonly, but still are taken for niche builds and roleplay reasons. There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. There's also been a statement (I don't recall the source exactly) that said they'd rather focus on designing new content than fixing old content.
#6 incenjucar Dec 29, 2011 17:28:10	Ot at least a "hide" button in the character builder, so I can get rid of feats and powers that will never, ever be used. This is my preference. Leave all the options there, sure, someone may have a use for it, but let me cut down on having to sort between inferior and superior versions of the same thing.
#7 Duskweaver Dec 30, 2011 1:53:39	There's a number of feats that are not taken commonly, but still are taken for niche builds and roleplay reasons. And those are not the feats the previous 3 posters were talking about. Nobody (AFAIK) has suggested removing Linguist or Skill Focus from the game. There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. And those groups don't have to use this hypothetical 'Hide Obsolete Feats' button. Even if the feats were literally removed from the game by errata, those groups could simply ignore that errata. There's also been a statement (I don't recall the source exactly) that said they'd rather focus on designing new content than fixing old content. Yes, and a lot of us hope WotC will eventually realise what a stupid idea that is and how it is actively damaging the game.
#8 IxidorRS Dec 30, 2011 1:55:24	There's a number of feats that are not taken commonly, but still are taken for niche builds and roleplay reasons. And those are not the feats the previous 3 posters were talking about. Nobody (AFAIK) has suggested removing Linguist or Skill Focus from the game. There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. And those groups don't have to use this hypothetical 'Hide Obsolete Feats' button. There's also been a statement (I don't recall the source exactly) that said they'd rather focus on designing new content than fixing old content. Yes, and a lot of us hope WotC will eventually realise what a stupid idea that is and how it is actively damaging the game. I wasn't talking about the hide button. I was talking a bout OP's post. The hide button would have to be player specific. Not everyone is going to agree.
#9 Duskweaver Dec 30, 2011 1:57:53	I wasn't talking about the hide button. I was talking a bout OP. Then your post makes even less sense, because the OP never mentioned removing anything from the game.
#10 IxidorRS Dec 30, 2011 2:01:14	I wasn't talking about the hide button. I was talking a bout OP. Then your post makes even less sense, because the OP never mentioned removing anything from the game. Where in my post did I say anything about removing anything?
#11 Duskweaver Dec 30, 2011 4:17:50	Where in my post did I say anything about removing anything? If that wasn't your implication, then I just don't understand your first post at all. In the context of this thread, it seems like a total non sequitur. What point were you attempting to make?
#12 Hippolyte Dec 30, 2011 5:58:23	There's also been a statement (I don't recall the source exactly) that said they'd rather focus on designing new content than fixing old content. Aye. I think the Wizards said that after the great howls of protest made in 2010 when there were many new errata. At the time, I wholly supported the new errata and was hoping for a constant stream of more. The problem is, that when the Wizards stopped making revisions, many old feats and powers (and even many new but ill thought feats and powers) simply rot on the vine. So this thread is my plea to resume their former course of action.
#13 Hippolyte Dec 30, 2011 6:02:35	There's a number of feats that are not taken commonly, but still are taken for niche builds and roleplay reasons. There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. Such feats and powers could still have their melodramatic value if they were slightly improved to make them attractive to the average player. But as has been pointed out, there are many feats and powers which are almost the same except that one is just an inferior version of the other. For example, Weapon Expertise versus Versatile Expertise and now some of the even newer Expertise feats.
#14 The_Jester Dec 30, 2011 11:33:18	Except... when WotC was doing massive Updating, most of the changes were nerfs. Very few changes increased power. There were a few, but far less common. While I was not a fan of Updates, I would appreciate seeing a mass revision of outright bad powers from PHB1 and 2 and the early power books.
#15 Hippolyte Dec 30, 2011 18:58:34	Except... when WotC was doing massive Updating, most of the changes were nerfs. Very few changes increased power. There were a few, but far less common. While I was not a fan of Updates, I would appreciate seeing a mass revision of outright bad powers from PHB1 and 2 and the early power books. You are correct, and I had forgotten that aspect of their revisions. I agree with you that the purpose of revision should be to improve and update the neglected garbage.
#16 Chimpadin Dec 31, 2011 4:39:45	Feats/powers/whatever can be balanced to make them a nice choice, and still be good for roleplay or themed characters. It doesn't, and shouldn't, be exclusive.
#17 theothersteve7 Jan 25, 2012 12:54:36	I don't see a problem with releasing a strictly superior version of a feat or power instead of errata-ing it.  It's the same thing.  They save their actual errata for things that need nerfed rather than buffed. That said, this strategy does result in a rather large amount of cruft to sift through.
#18 Style75 Jan 25, 2012 14:39:11	There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. This is precisely the reason why the online CB desperately needs to have a campaign filter whereby the user can specify what sources he wants to use/exclude when choosing options. It makes me CrAzY that this hasn't been implemented yet.
#19 sythspawn Jan 26, 2012 10:01:44	There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. This is precisely the reason why the online CB desperately needs to have a campaign filter whereby the user can specify what sources he wants to use/exclude when choosing options. It makes me CrAzY that this hasn't been implemented yet. +1 I need this feature for my LFR characters!
#20 Style75 Jan 26, 2012 14:05:52	There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. This is precisely the reason why the online CB desperately needs to have a campaign filter whereby the user can specify what sources he wants to use/exclude when choosing options. It makes me CrAzY that this hasn't been implemented yet. +1 I need this feature for my LFR characters!  Seeing as how the LFR community is so big and probably makes up a huge chunk of paying DDI subscribers it absolutely mystifies me why WotC doesn't have a LFR mode built into the CB that would only show the currently legal LFR options.
#21 sythspawn Jan 26, 2012 14:19:29	There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. This is precisely the reason why the online CB desperately needs to have a campaign filter whereby the user can specify what sources he wants to use/exclude when choosing options. It makes me CrAzY that this hasn't been implemented yet. +1 I need this feature for my LFR characters!  Seeing as how the LFR community is so big and probably makes up a huge chunk of paying DDI subscribers it absolutely mystifies me why WotC doesn't have a LFR mode built into the CB that would only show the currently legal LFR options. It's amazing how many newer LFR players use the CB, and think that simply choosing the Forgotten Realms campaign setting is the same as creating a legal LFR character.
#22 Damon_Tor Jan 26, 2012 15:55:28	There are playgroups that say, "only use stuff from these sources," where a superior feat may not exist. This is precisely the reason why the online CB desperately needs to have a campaign filter whereby the user can specify what sources he wants to use/exclude when choosing options. It makes me CrAzY that this hasn't been implemented yet. +1 I need this feature for my LFR characters!  Seeing as how the LFR community is so big and probably makes up a huge chunk of paying DDI subscribers it absolutely mystifies me why WotC doesn't have a LFR mode built into the CB that would only show the currently legal LFR options. You've answered your own question. WotC has been actively trying to distance itself from LFR for a while now.  The cynic in me says they want to to die so they can replace it with something more profitable.
#23 Style75 Jan 27, 2012 7:02:52	Seeing as how the LFR community is so big and probably makes up a huge chunk of paying DDI subscribers it absolutely mystifies me why WotC doesn't have a LFR mode built into the CB that would only show the currently legal LFR options. You've answered your own question. WotC has been actively trying to distance itself from LFR for a while now.  The cynic in me says they want to to die so they can replace it with something more profitable. That would be very foolish for WotC from a business perspective. I'd be willing to bet that people who play LFR make up a substantial percentage of not only those who pay for DDI but also buy 4th edition products. To allow that group to do die now would only turn away more of their customer base. Never mind that fact that WotC claims it wants to bring all D&D players back into the fold, 5th edition products are at least a year a way and driving this group away would hurt their 2012 profits. I really don't think WotC wants LFR to die. Think about it, this volunteer run community is doing the heavy lifting of writing and supporting a "living" campaign world that promotes D&D's flagship product. WotC gets all of the publicity and paying customers without having to pay anybody anything. This is a huge win-win for them. The thing that I really don't understand is why WotC hasn't played up LFR more than they have. No, I see it as a situation where the digital design team is probably busy working on other products, like the tools for 5e.
#24 Hippolyte Jan 27, 2012 16:02:39	WotC has been actively trying to distance itself from LFR for a while now.  The cynic in me says they want to to die so they can replace it with something more profitable. I doubt that very much since the Wizards have announced that the Forgotten Realms will be supported from the outset by the Fifth Edition. What better way to support it than with the Living Forgotten Realms?
#25 Damon_Tor Jan 28, 2012 5:48:50	WotC has been actively trying to distance itself from LFR for a while now.  The cynic in me says they want to to die so they can replace it with something more profitable. I doubt that very much since the Wizards have announced that the Forgotten Realms will be supported from the outset by the Fifth Edition. What better way to support it than with the Living Forgotten Realms? Seeing as the entire campaign setting is apparenty outsourced to China?  Who the hell knows.
#26 Style75 Jan 28, 2012 11:55:41	Seeing as the entire campaign setting is apparenty outsourced to China?  Who the hell knows. I think that's just the artwork, and I think there's more to this than they're letting on. My guess is some sort of 3D virtual table and they've hired a Chinese company to handle the graphics side of things.