CapnZapp
Legend
I think we're veering dangerously close to relativistic nothingness.
In fact, many if not most people denouncing the worth of these feats severely underestimate their minmaxing potential. So many posters bringing out detailed math that just from a quick look completely miss the hardcore combinations that bring the feats up to a whole other level.
And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link.
So even before we go into specifics, of course offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line.
Now, if D&D had offered a robust aggro system then I could have seen a point. If defensive tanks were given the power to control the actions of enemies. But it doesn't. It just does not. (There is experiments with token abilities but nothing that really approximates the power of the World of Warcraft Warrior main battle tank)
This means that: sure, if you have a DM that is sympathetic to your build, then yes, how lovely to see the goblins faff about ineffectually at your AC 26 mountain fortress of a character.
But this build will always be incredibly vulnerable to opponents that walk around that fortress.
In stark - very stark - contrast you have the optimized killers that leave every other fighter build in the dust. Each time you kill a foe a round earlier you're saving twice as many attacks against your side. A dead enemy can't choose to ignore your high AC and go for the squishies.
And I really am having trouble taking the detractors seriously. If offense meant that you got perhaps one point of attack value or two points of damage for a point of defense, then again: maybe you do have a point.
But D&D doesn't keep that balance. It features feats that blow you out of the water. The damage potential of an attack that otherwise might be 1d12+7 becomes 1d12+17. Times three or five each round! A huge huge increase! And it thinks that the penalty will counteract that; completely missing the feats' greatest power:
The player is in control, and can choose to not use the feats. This means that every time you bring up a player using the feats wrong, your argument is irrelevant, because nobody has ever claimed they're powerful in the hands of the inept.
Instead, they're absolutely ghastly in terms of intra-build balance in the hands of mathematically proficient players who know what they're doing.
That they're wasted on the average gamer is not a good thing - in fact I consider it another black mark against them. I think that "too-difficult" design is bad design, and a feat that makes you take bad decisions is a bad feat indeed.
But again: the main damage these feats are doing is the way they're saying: "forget about being a cool lethal killer with your throwing knives or with your spear, because compared to the greataxe guy, you simply are not".
Sure, they overturn balance and make monsters look wimpy, but that's not the greatest damage - the main issue is that if you like to contribute to the death of your enemies, these feats severely restricts your choice of weapon, reducing variety and lessening the fun of the game.
It boils down to this:
Some campaigns don't worry about damage, and combat isn't a centrepiece. Some campaigns don't feature a minmaxing player. In lots of campaigns these feats are not a problem, because they're not utilized to their full extent, or because their power (=DPR) isn't valued highly.
But errataing the feats would not change that. These campaigns would just be as happy with fixed feats.
And there's the rub. There are other campaigns, where these feats are absolutely devastating. You simply must use them or fall behind helplessly. These are the campaigns which would greatly benefit from official fixes.
And so every campaign would be better off (or indifferent to) improving these feats, and that is why they obviously should be fixed.
Had there been a group of campaigns that actively would be hurt by bringing these feats in line, then maybe there would be a credible argument against fixing them. But there isn't.
And so: resisting fixing these feats boil down to "they're not a problem for me, so I rather not errata my books".
And that's a reprehensible stance to take, and I detest it. Just fix these feats already, and the game will be better off for everybody.
Thank you
In fact, many if not most people denouncing the worth of these feats severely underestimate their minmaxing potential. So many posters bringing out detailed math that just from a quick look completely miss the hardcore combinations that bring the feats up to a whole other level.
And then you have the fundamental notion that offense means you get to choose (which enemy dies first). What defense means, is that the enemy is given the choice to ignore your greatest asset. In short: by skipping your impervious behemoth, they're attacking the weakest link.
So even before we go into specifics, of course offense is going to carry the day! It's comparing Panzers to the Maginot line.
Now, if D&D had offered a robust aggro system then I could have seen a point. If defensive tanks were given the power to control the actions of enemies. But it doesn't. It just does not. (There is experiments with token abilities but nothing that really approximates the power of the World of Warcraft Warrior main battle tank)
This means that: sure, if you have a DM that is sympathetic to your build, then yes, how lovely to see the goblins faff about ineffectually at your AC 26 mountain fortress of a character.
But this build will always be incredibly vulnerable to opponents that walk around that fortress.
In stark - very stark - contrast you have the optimized killers that leave every other fighter build in the dust. Each time you kill a foe a round earlier you're saving twice as many attacks against your side. A dead enemy can't choose to ignore your high AC and go for the squishies.
And I really am having trouble taking the detractors seriously. If offense meant that you got perhaps one point of attack value or two points of damage for a point of defense, then again: maybe you do have a point.
But D&D doesn't keep that balance. It features feats that blow you out of the water. The damage potential of an attack that otherwise might be 1d12+7 becomes 1d12+17. Times three or five each round! A huge huge increase! And it thinks that the penalty will counteract that; completely missing the feats' greatest power:
The player is in control, and can choose to not use the feats. This means that every time you bring up a player using the feats wrong, your argument is irrelevant, because nobody has ever claimed they're powerful in the hands of the inept.
Instead, they're absolutely ghastly in terms of intra-build balance in the hands of mathematically proficient players who know what they're doing.
That they're wasted on the average gamer is not a good thing - in fact I consider it another black mark against them. I think that "too-difficult" design is bad design, and a feat that makes you take bad decisions is a bad feat indeed.
But again: the main damage these feats are doing is the way they're saying: "forget about being a cool lethal killer with your throwing knives or with your spear, because compared to the greataxe guy, you simply are not".
Sure, they overturn balance and make monsters look wimpy, but that's not the greatest damage - the main issue is that if you like to contribute to the death of your enemies, these feats severely restricts your choice of weapon, reducing variety and lessening the fun of the game.
It boils down to this:
Some campaigns don't worry about damage, and combat isn't a centrepiece. Some campaigns don't feature a minmaxing player. In lots of campaigns these feats are not a problem, because they're not utilized to their full extent, or because their power (=DPR) isn't valued highly.
But errataing the feats would not change that. These campaigns would just be as happy with fixed feats.
And there's the rub. There are other campaigns, where these feats are absolutely devastating. You simply must use them or fall behind helplessly. These are the campaigns which would greatly benefit from official fixes.
And so every campaign would be better off (or indifferent to) improving these feats, and that is why they obviously should be fixed.
Had there been a group of campaigns that actively would be hurt by bringing these feats in line, then maybe there would be a credible argument against fixing them. But there isn't.
And so: resisting fixing these feats boil down to "they're not a problem for me, so I rather not errata my books".
And that's a reprehensible stance to take, and I detest it. Just fix these feats already, and the game will be better off for everybody.
Thank you
Last edited:
