Disabled Epic Feats

[Onikukki]

Don't you think that is in some ways underpowering Swashbucklers? I'm not trying to cause a big arguement or anything, I'm just afraid that these changes will be hurting players more than helping.. seems sort of one sided.

[Kaeldorn]

Underpowering? I can't see how.. Using equipment/spells and base ability modifiers it's easily possible to reach int modifiers well over 20. Assuming an int of 22, a dual wielding swashbuckler with Combat Insight would then get +12 damage on his main hand and +9 on his off hand. That's pretty sick..

The +6 modifier on each hand is already very good. Not to mention that if you're a duelist you get your int bonus on AC.. Not bad at all.

[Onikukki]

.. I want my Combat Insight, damnit. *Cries in corner*

I see your point now, I just think that, being epic characters, characters, not just my Swashbuckler, should get epic feats. By restricting so many, I think some classes will end up underpowered compared to other builds that were able to take the un-restricted feats without severely damaging their build because they couldn't take a feat for their class.

[Xeesheava]

Another stupid descition brought to you by

SUNDREN

[Zoberraz]

edit: Xeesheava, you're begging to get banned there.

I don't really think this is up for debate. All I can really offer here are my own observations:

I had no trouble believing that once a character reached epic level, his abilities would become more sizeably powerful - especially since many of those augments relied on feats.

It was natural for me to see the fighter's hallmark - weapon focus and weapon specialization - become augmented. Likewise with the ranger's main combat asset to cause more harm to a selection of creatures he specialized fighting against. Or the warlock's ability to make stronger eldritch blasts, or the rogue's ability to pull out more mileage out of their sneak attacks.

I'll admit I'm baffled by seeing Dragon Companion out, especially considering the hefty requirements needed for it. Somehow, the reasoning behind it just doesn't seem to balance up in my mind. Anyone making that investment should - based on Kaeldorn's arguments - have something for it. Not to mention how Dragon companion isn't really all that strong in comparison to the standard companion selection.

I feel that this measure is simply over-complicating things in a way; this wasn't a restriction I feel was really needed. Epic feats allow the epic characters to accomplish jaw-dropping exploits that non-epic characters would not be able to do - and it looks like many of those were removed to have this toned down. I imagine epic characters should look epic, with dazzling abilities and all that... but that's apparently my personal vision, not that of the server - and I'm certain you really do feel well justified in this.

I can understand the toning down from a stand-point of trying to control the power of players to be able to keep challenging them as DMs. I can understand the effective watering down of epic feats in order to equalize more the benefit classes get out of them (the paladin, for example, felt like it got the short-end of the stick there). I just wonder if narrowing the focus of epic feats will be that good, since it'll leave less options for respective classes to set themselves apart at the epic tier.

From my perspective, it's not a bad decision... just an odd one I have trouble relating with the reasoning of. Then again, I do not have a DM's perspective (or have insight in the play experience staff wants to deliver in the first place). I feel lucky enough to be able to access epic tier in the first place - I just feel unsure of its value, seeing the truly class advancing abilities in the feats that can be gained from there were drastically thinned down.

[Azulfae]

Yep looks like it's not up for debate. Nothing ever is. This decision really seems to have peed of the player base though. It might be wise to reconsider some of the decisions made.

I see and read the reasons for this and although I can see why you guys think it's a good idea, I think and so does every body else, those reasons are wrong, mistaken and there are some very very good reasons why.

The game is well balanced. D&D is an old game that has been developed over generations! Lots of practice and time has gone in to covering every base. Epic can suddenly seem unbalanced but you are forgetting how the laws of physics operate differently at this different level of character.

Epic level feats are part of D&D's game mechanics and make it balanced. All these things have been considered and put in place by the game creators for a reason. Every property, feat and spell, every skill is designed to counter and overcome something.

Small modifications can be made to suit some small issues created by the set up of a player world but when massive decisions are suddenly made to re-design the game mechanics, you are effectively looking at a chain reaction of downward spiralling exploits, overpowering/underpowering issues and discontent from the player base and agitation from DM's at the discontent of players. Hostility all around.

Discontent low level characters players will just up and leave but if someone stays long enough to get their PC to 20+ level they will fight for things. Fighting for something on Sundren gets beaten down and punished. You punish everyone who is a player and very soon you've lost the respect of your community and it's all going to fall apart.

Is it just a case that the DM team does not want Epic levels to be epic? Why did you then raise the level bar to epic!

Personally these decisions are not going to affect my highest levels character buiild but that puts him at a distinct advantage over others. This is the scenario you need to be aware of.

[Verrath]

I'm very much in agreement with Kangleton's post here.... I realize the reaons for implementing this but...

With the new cap rules and the AGES it takes to gain a high level even without it... (yes, it does, unless RL is just something that happens when you go AFK, for you) - and the fact that above 20 you are, in fact EPIC - don't you think a player deserves a bit of a treat when he finally makes it there? A bit of that "epic" feeling? After a year and a half, my character is level 16. And I know with the way and the amount of time I play (as I rarely have the patience to kill more than one round of creatures, if that) - it will take me the same time again until I get to my cap.

Besides, the cap is at 20, which means you don't even BECOME epic without DM intervention ("Epic" starting at 21 after all.).... so it's all entirely at the DM's discretion.

And at that point it is only a CHOICE of feats, and you have to reach yet more levels to select another.

If I had my say, I'd say that this change is a bit over the top. And while it may curb powergaming, it will also hurt the Roleplayers, because believe it or not, getting that feat will add to the PC's personality and form his or her character.

[Thief Of Navarre]

^ What Kangleton said! His DD argument + the fact that you can take epic DR, which gives a defender with racial feats a DR of 13-16/- which will generally slash HP loss in half :S

[Kaeldorn]

DR doesn't stack.

[Zoberraz]

The point which seems the most important to me is that by epic level, several feats become a manner of advancement for classes. The larger portion of the feats left behind are much... ah, I'll call them 'class neutral'.

For example, a level 21+ bard can sing more bard songs per day, has better saves and such... but he no longer has the chance to learn new songs. A lv21+ Wizard no longer has the chance to push the boundaries of his magical knowledge and expertise with epic spells out, and epic metamagic feats curtailed.

Advancement goes further than just base attack, hit points, caster level, saving throws and a handful of skill points. That's why I'm stressing the importance of some of those feats. They were used as a medium to allow the class taking it to become better at what they do. I suppose it is part of your point of view on going epic level, but part of it for me was earning those types of abilities which really did cut you above the norm - in part spoiling the very reason why being in epic level in itself would be sought after and exceptional beyond just having a high numerical value for a level.

Part of the reason why seems to be to encourage picking up roleplay-oriented feats. Okay, sure... but this is sort of the same deal as with the armor swapping timer. Before, we could make the choice of work on making roleplay out of it and take time. Now, a lag time is forced upon us, forcing us to stop for it even when it is not convenient. People shine through choices... if you make part of those choices for them, the 'exceptionalness' of those choices wane.

Regardless, this is sort of turning into a bigger deal than needed, but I do hope you'll take the arguments in consideration... seeing this is apparently being in the process of being implemented. I am grateful to have the chance to go epic... I just wish being a lv21+ ranger would look more attractive than a multiclassed ranger/post-epic arcane archer (whom would still gain class features post-20, on top of epic feats).

Thank you for your patience and attention.

[Cornuto]

I don't really think this is up for debate.

We don't discourage constructive feedback. The staff may not agree with you ultimately though.

[Kangleton]

Choices were based not on how effective something is for 'duelling' or PvP. That's actually of very little consequence as far as I'm concerned, since it's not the purpose of the server and whatever happens in it I'm sure can be roleplayed out.

Feats were filtered based on comparison with other feats (non-epic feats also) for how 'competitive' they are in a PvE environment. Once people start to feel they have to have one of a select few number of feats to keep up with everyone else, it actually limits your options in character building rather than increasing them.

Why are you balancing epic levels for PvE, when an Epic level character doesn't get XP for PvE encounters in the first place? You're trying to prevent them from grinding better when they have no incentive to grind anyways?

And PvP isn't of consequence to the server? PvP is a climactic and exciting way to conclude or initiate RP. If PvP and all its consequences didn't matter, why was a subdual option instated to enhance it? PvP is a suspenseful element of RP.

Think about it. What are the first feats every fighter thinks about taking upon reaching 21st level? Epic Weapon Focus, Armor Skin or Epic Weapon Specialisation. What is the first feat every single ranger would take at 21st level? Bane of enemies. What feats would every single offensive spellcaster choose from? Epic Spell Focus in their preferred offensive school, or one of the epic spells. Every druid would run around with a dragon pet, every bard would start mass murder while singing, and every rogue would suddenly be able to sneak attack everything.

By that reasoning, shouldn't you remove normal Weapon Focus, since every Fighter will probably jump to take that as hard as they'd jump on the Epic version? Maybe you should just remove all combat-oriented feats so that we don't feel pressured to choose them, as well. And uh, if you want to prevent people from feeling pressured to take the obvious feat choices, why not come up with a more fun solution. Why not code more feats to make a wider selection, and therefore more choices and customization? You're taking the lazy, less fun solution to the problem, punishing the players who now have less versatility and an inability to play the character as they intended. Fun.

The feats that are left untouched may still have a bit of power, but their general usefulness in PvE is much less noticeable. Sure, you might have epic dodge, but with the amount of dexterity that you need to get it you've already 'gimped' your damage output compared to other frontliners. It's not that extremely powerful when you are fighting multiple enemies, and to all except perhaps monks and dex-based fighters (who, I might add, really get the short end of the stick almost everywhere else) it's more of an escape feat than something allowing them to avoid consecutive hits.

Again, worrying about PvE for an Epic Level character seems pretty weak for reasons stated above. Why would an Epic Level character run around grinding, risking permadeath or huge XP hits, with nothing to gain? Right. And if you retort to this with something like "we're developing something for epic level characters to do", why not invest that work into actually putting an effort to balancing the feats instead of deleting them? Why not put that work into expanding the feat list so there's some good choices and nobody makes choices based on "compulsion".

The epic saves feats are pretty nice, yes. But you need the basic feat as a prerequisite, which is so-so, and the number of situations where you'll actually find these feats useful are not so common. That's the case with many feats that only have a passive component. Armor skin will help you against every melee or ranged attack, but saves feats only help any if you get a spell cast on you, and then still that fortitude save will do nothing against a fireball. Now, you might ask, why leave concealment in? It's only 10% per feat taken in it, so it gives a static 10% avoidance regardless of AC. That's easier to keep in check than 2 points of AC. Same with damage reduction. Basically every strong warrior enemy you'll meet past 20 will pretty much cut right through it.

You think that the save feats have limited use? Taking Epic Will negates, basically, two entire spell schools. Epic Fortitude negates almost every last instant-death spell, which you'd have to be pretty dim to think is useless. If your argument is that there are feats that are more useful, so what? It's a trade-off. Sure, you could have +2AC and tank better, but when a Wizard shows up with a Wail of the Banshee, you'll have to live and die with your choice. I thought Sundren advocated there being consequences to your actions.

And uh, why are you complaining that a Fighter will be durable and hard to hit? Maybe Rogues shouldn't be nimble or light on their feet, then? Should Wizards stop being so smart? You're depriving the classes of all they have to look forward to, and their individual strengths. You're watering down their diversity and what makes them strong in ways apart from one another. I don't play a single melee character, but if I fought one, I'd sure as hell hope that he'd beat the shit out of me in a toe-to-toe fight.

[Tome]

Before this reaches a truly ugly point lol, I want everyone to know that this matter is being discussed and we are working out some ideas that may be more to the liking of everyone. Your voices have been heard and we are taking steps.

We will keep you posted about any new ideas and/or possible changes. I would also like to give a personal thanks to everyone for their input.

[Zoberraz]

Just a tiny addendum:
Please note that many of the feats in question become specific options of pure character builds.

If I am not mistaken, only a level 21 epic fighter can get Epic Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon Specialization, just as much as only a level 21 Ranger can gain access to Bane of Enemies.

This said, there are characters out there whom have optimized their combat characters by going the route of the Fighter/Weapon Master, the Swashbuckler/Duelist, the Fighter(or Barbarian)/Frenzied Berserker, the rogue(or ranger)/shadowdancer, the Ranger(or Fighter)/arcane spellcaster(bard, wizard, sorcerer)/Arcane Archer, the Wizard/Arcane Scholar or the Wizard/Eldritch Knight... and even more skipped to prevent this from becoming a cumbersome, exhaustive list.

All in the paragraph above have enjoyed significant advantages by going in those prestige classes. Given this, why not reward the characters whom went and truly dedicated themselves to their class by going pure single class?

[Allielliot]

Okay I"m not sure how I feel about this, but i do know how i feel about attacking the dms and devs who VOLUNTEER thier time to make something fun for us. Like they said be constructive. As angry as you are, think if you did the work to do this, and then the people you are doing it for just got mad? they have RL as well and I think we need to take into consideration how much they give for us to be entertained. On the other hand DMs if if seems that the majority of the player base is against somehting once it has been properly explained, then I think comprimise should be found before most of the player base that you are working for leaves. thanks to everyone.