D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[Snarf Zagyg]

ok, so class exclusive feats.

No.

Seriously, this is not that hard to understand. "Class exclusive feats" are still feats.

But sure, why don't we call them, "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of a subclass and must be taken at that level," which, you know, are exactly what subclass abilities are.

In the same way that we call "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of class and must be taken at that level" ... class abilities.

Which is why we don't call them feats, because feats are not class (or subclass) abilities. Other than that, though, batting 1.000!

 

[Undrave]

...which would literally defeat the one and only (alleged) selling-point the "Bonus Action" structure had, which was that it would avoid people thinking they "needed" to be using one.

Which was a pipe dream if you ask me.

 

[Remathilis]

No.

Seriously, this is not that hard to understand. "Class exclusive feats" are still feats.

But sure, why don't we call them, "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of a subclass and must be taken at that level," which, you know, are exactly what subclass abilities are.

In the same way that we call "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of class and must be taken at that level" ... class abilities.

Which is why we don't call them feats, because feats are not class (or subclass) abilities. Other than that, though, batting 1.000!

It would be easier if people's fixes for 5e wasn't "make PF 2e"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It would be easier if people's fixes for 5e wasn't "make PF 2e"

I would probably understand that comment better if I knew anything about PF 2e, or anyone who played it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Feats are not Class Features. Class (and Subclass) Features are not Feats.

But both of them are exactly the same-- small game mechanics a PC takes to modify their character mechanically with what they can do.

So ostensibly one could say Feats and Class Features ARE the same thing, it's just how and when you get them is different.

 

[Horwath]

Because that was SUCH a great design that didn't have any horrible problems.

only problem was that the fighter was too weak comparing to full caster also.
If fighter was too weak toward other martials, you could always give it more feats.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It would be easier if people's fixes for 5e wasn't "make PF 2e"

I've got my own list of fixes for PF2, but... yeah, that would count as improvement we won't see.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which was a pipe dream if you ask me.

Believe me, you're preaching to the choir.

I'm of the opinion that a good quarter to third of 5e's design assumptions were pipe dreams.

only problem was that the fighter was too weak comparing to full caster also.
If fighter was too weak toward other martials, you could always give it more feats.

And the existing Fighter is somehow free of caster/martial disparity issues?

 

[tetrasodium]

only problem was that the fighter was too weak comparing to full caster also.
If fighter was too weak toward other martials, you could always give it more feats.

Fighter with an optimized build could get incredibly powerful with all those feats. Here's a shock trooper build I found that does 80+ per hit fairly early on.

Post by @ihititwithmyaxe

The Charging Fighter: Breaking 3.5 D&D The article on character building advice I recently posted mentions the Charging Fighter. Many of you may not know what that looks like…

www.tumblr.com

 

[Horwath]

Fighter with an optimized build could get incredibly powerful with all those feats. Here's a shock trooper build I found that does 80+ per hit fairly early on.

Post by @ihititwithmyaxe

The Charging Fighter: Breaking 3.5 D&D The article on character building advice I recently posted mentions the Charging Fighter. Many of you may not know what that looks like…

www.tumblr.com

nice.
but few things beat Incantatrix with Persistent spell and Metamagic effect.