Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1128935" data-attributes="member: 5171">Frank, I'm not sure that I agree with you here.&nbsp; I don't think people were under the impression that they could change their bonus feats at will.&nbsp; I think that what people were saying was that the bonus feats allow you to make whatever type of fighter you want.&nbsp; The feats allow you to make an archery specialist, a hit-and-run expert, a two-handed-weapon monster, or a guy who dabbles in a bunch of fields.&nbsp; In that respect, it IS customizable -- it's the same level of customizability as the wizard, who gets to choose his spells and really has nothing but spells to go with, or the rogue, who gets to choose his skill points and is not a power-contender in most areas beyond skill-usage.The wizard is the customizable guy with spells.&nbsp; The rogue is the customizable guy with skills.&nbsp; The fighter is the customizable guy with the best BAB.I've found with fighters that what i end up valuing are not so much the bonus feats themselves, which tend to be the stuff I'd take anyway if I were playing a ranger or a paladin -- but the ordinary feats, which I can use for stuff I wouldn't have room for if I weren't playing a bonus-feat-heavy class.For what it's worth, I personally agree with you that Weapon Focus/Specialization is not the way to go.&nbsp; I HATE having to rely on a single weapon, when that weapon could be disarmed or sundered -- or when I might find a much better weapon of a different type.&nbsp; I personally never take that feat when playing a PC.&nbsp; On the other hand, enough people DO take that feat chain that it apparently IS valuable in somebody's eyes -- just not in ours.On another side note: You're making a lot of good rules points on these boards, but people are responding more to your tone than to your points.&nbsp; If you were a little more diplomatic, you'd probably have a lot more supporters.EDIT: Got rid of rest of Frank's post, which I'd quoted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1128935, member: 5171"] Frank, I'm not sure that I agree with you here. I don't think people were under the impression that they could change their bonus feats at will. I think that what people were saying was that the bonus feats allow you to make whatever type of fighter you want. The feats allow you to make an archery specialist, a hit-and-run expert, a two-handed-weapon monster, or a guy who dabbles in a bunch of fields. In that respect, it IS customizable -- it's the same level of customizability as the wizard, who gets to choose his spells and really has nothing but spells to go with, or the rogue, who gets to choose his skill points and is not a power-contender in most areas beyond skill-usage. The wizard is the customizable guy with spells. The rogue is the customizable guy with skills. The fighter is the customizable guy with the best BAB. I've found with fighters that what i end up valuing are not so much the bonus feats themselves, which tend to be the stuff I'd take anyway if I were playing a ranger or a paladin -- but the ordinary feats, which I can use for stuff I wouldn't have room for if I weren't playing a bonus-feat-heavy class. For what it's worth, I personally agree with you that Weapon Focus/Specialization is not the way to go. I HATE having to rely on a single weapon, when that weapon could be disarmed or sundered -- or when I might find a much better weapon of a different type. I personally never take that feat when playing a PC. On the other hand, enough people DO take that feat chain that it apparently IS valuable in somebody's eyes -- just not in ours. On another side note: You're making a lot of good rules points on these boards, but people are responding more to your tone than to your points. If you were a little more diplomatic, you'd probably have a lot more supporters. EDIT: Got rid of rest of Frank's post, which I'd quoted. [/QUOTE]

Verification