doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
One subclass of fighter gets spells, and all classes can take feats which grant spells, therefore we can say all classes get spells it's just that some get more. Getting more feats is SUPER MEANINGFUL. It's not something available to everyone else - nobody else gets as many. Much like Fighters can't get many spells, but they can get a few. If we filled some of those feat slots with fixed abilities which duplicated some feats, suddenly you wouldn't be able to make this argument, even though it would DECREASE the flexibility of the fighter. You have to actually address that feat argument with something more than a hand waive dismissal of "but yeah everyone gets feats" because it's not really addressing the point made. And to call out that it's optional is fine, but any official "fix" would almost certainly be optional as well so not sure why that's a good point? We're going to deal with the realm of optional anyway, so let's talk about the current options in a real way. Which means looking at the reality of what "gets more feats" means for this topic.
Right, I recognized feats earlier in the thread as a feature that helps, but the fact is most players don’t use them.
The rest of the arguments in this thread, esp the “just roleplay” argument, range from weak to outright spurious. You’re going to have to make dice rolls eventually, and when you do, that role playing isn’t going to change that you have absolutely nothing backing up the concept of being good at something. For most skills, you’ll be half as good as a trained character, if you don’t have proficiency, if not worse than that. The idea this doesn’t matter because you can just make roleplaying decisions that obviate skills is...nonsense, IME. What DM is just letting you obviate whole skills regularly by describing how you do the thing the skill pertains to? How is that a good solution?