Warpiglet
Adventurer
A recent discussion about weapon master here on EnWorld got me thinking. I was one of the few people that thought the feat was fine since it helps to make a "character."
I realize why I am often on the other side of popular opinion.
I do not think "situational" is a bad thing. In fact, I think "situational" is a good thing. In short, if feats are for customization, they should not be for everyone. Why would everyone want to be the same thing?
If feats are meant for customization, shouldn't they by their nature be situational?
Many good feats are situational. Not all fighters should take ritual caster. Why? Because not all fighters are interested in magic (of course!) or would have had a background in which they would have learned the skill.
I am thinking it would be fun to take a pact of the tome warlock who is able to use martial weapons as well as greenflame/booming blade. Perhaps I might like to take an arcana cleric with heavy armor and martial weapons (and the aforementioned cantrip). This is situational too because a war cleric would have no use for weapon master or heavily armored aside from the 1/2 ASI for each! but that can be had other ways with a non-redundant side benefit...
I can see using the elemental adept with a fire sorcerer...but that is situational, right? Some spell casters don't have many elemental invocations.
Sorry--not trying to be pedantic but just saying that I don't think players should let "situational" scare them. What should scare them is BORING. Dream it and play it. Don't let people talk you out of it.
My only disclaimer here is that I am not a pacifistic junior thespian. We play combat heavy games with good roleplaying interspersed. I don't advocate playing useless ineffectual characters for the sake of high drama because I don't think many adventurers would venture forth if they are feeble or useless. I just think unique and uncommon things can make the character come to life. In my experience, this makes the stakes of combat higher and in fact more exciting.
I realize why I am often on the other side of popular opinion.
I do not think "situational" is a bad thing. In fact, I think "situational" is a good thing. In short, if feats are for customization, they should not be for everyone. Why would everyone want to be the same thing?
If feats are meant for customization, shouldn't they by their nature be situational?
Many good feats are situational. Not all fighters should take ritual caster. Why? Because not all fighters are interested in magic (of course!) or would have had a background in which they would have learned the skill.
I am thinking it would be fun to take a pact of the tome warlock who is able to use martial weapons as well as greenflame/booming blade. Perhaps I might like to take an arcana cleric with heavy armor and martial weapons (and the aforementioned cantrip). This is situational too because a war cleric would have no use for weapon master or heavily armored aside from the 1/2 ASI for each! but that can be had other ways with a non-redundant side benefit...
I can see using the elemental adept with a fire sorcerer...but that is situational, right? Some spell casters don't have many elemental invocations.
Sorry--not trying to be pedantic but just saying that I don't think players should let "situational" scare them. What should scare them is BORING. Dream it and play it. Don't let people talk you out of it.
My only disclaimer here is that I am not a pacifistic junior thespian. We play combat heavy games with good roleplaying interspersed. I don't advocate playing useless ineffectual characters for the sake of high drama because I don't think many adventurers would venture forth if they are feeble or useless. I just think unique and uncommon things can make the character come to life. In my experience, this makes the stakes of combat higher and in fact more exciting.