So how should they go about addressing that dissatisfaction? Do you think they need to go with the "tall order" Zapp mentioned in the OP?
I suspect they'll check out PF2, and go with that, or back to 3.x or something.
Which is sad, because 5e was s'posed't'be for everyone....
;(
Do you share the concerns cited? Some, all?
Meh. I don't use feats or MCing or Inspiration unless I have to, but that's as much convienence as 'concern.' I acknowledge the issues, though, they're real enough, and they're hardly the only ones. Depending on how you rule on the broad swaths of the rules that are ambiguous, the few that seem problematic 'As Written' can fade into the background or come to fore - and you can create/solve all sorts of other problems, too.
In 3.5 or 4e I'd be more concerned about issues being dismissed, because the rules were more concrete and the game was supposed to work (a certain way), again, "As Written." 5e, DM Empowerment, Rulings over Rules - I still have to acknowledge a mechanical issue, and don't want to see one dismissed out of hand, but the game really exists more in the moment, at the table, not in the rulebook, nor even at chargen/level-up.
I'll ask again, because I'm curious for your answer
If it wasn't a rhetorical question, it might as well be a tautology.
But, just as 5e assumes 6-8 encounters for it's balance point, because it gives classes different resource models, it also necessarily assumes a ratio among the pillars, because it gives classes different levels of competence within each, as well. Really, there's a very narrow range of potential ways to play, if you want the game to balance, mechanically, on its own. (I'd say 'without intervention' but sticking to that straight and narrow is, itself, intervention.)
. they want balance as it relates to DPR. That desire is the direct cause of their dissatisfaction. They have a problem because DPR is their main concern.
They want DPR builds to balance with DPR builds, that's not the same thing as DPR being the main concern, or they'd be all over trying to boost DPR outside the weapon users who have little else to contribute. Instead, the excess DPR of the feat-optimized fighter is viewed as merely rendering the class viable.
Not at all. I think they can solve the issue. I think the game is customizable enough to get the results they want.
Again, sounds like he has, but is unhappy with what doing so necessitates, in terms of ongoing effort.
You're missing my point. The Feat isn't necessary to create a Robin Hood type character. Not unless you thought such a character couldn't exist prior to 3E and the introduction of Feats.
Actually, that's not entirely unfair to say. Fighters were very generic until they lucked into a defining magic item, prior to 3e, and the lack of skills also hurt attempts at the Robin Hood (or almost any other) archetype. Though weapon specialization obviously, let you be exceptional with a bow, it was about damage through RoF, primarily (+1 to hit won't win you many archery contests).
SS at least gives you startling accuracy at long range & vs cover.
But 'necessary' is relative. If the option is there, to be the best, you 'need' it. One of the problem with pouring too many options into a list-based game, it creates incompetence in those who don't immediately snap up the relevant new options, when, before, they were as good as could be. (Obviously that doesn't imply everyone should suck exactly the same at everything to 'avoid bloat' or anything, it's just a design consideration.)
he feels that these feats are necessary because otherwise the Fighter and other martials may fall behind on DPR compared to certain casters.
Don't stay far enough ahead in DPR to make up for caster versatility, anyway.
Sure, I'd agree with you there. I just think that given the other design goals of scaling the numbers and bounded accuracy and the like that the -5/+10 bits are out of place.
The -5 actually fits neatly with BA: without BA, it'd be too great a penalty at low level, and trivial at high.
My guess on their inclusion is that they felt there would be backlash if there were not 3E style feats included.
No question. Things were included, excluded, & designed to avoid another edition war, to evoke classic feel, promote DM Empowerment, and to seem accessible from a distance (not look intimidating on the shelf).
Balance was never on the table - ironically, except for the easily-checked DPR.