Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7233994" data-attributes="member: 2525">I am not confused about the idea. You're confused about my use of the word &quot;bonus&quot;.&nbsp; You seem to be under the mistaken impression there is a rule called &quot;bonus feats&quot; in the core books. There is not. It's just common parlance on this message board. Bonus is just an English word. It means &quot;extra&quot; or as the dictionary defines it, &quot;something in addition to what is expected or strictly due&quot;. That's how I am using it. There is no &quot;rogue bonus feat&quot; or &quot;fighter bonus feat&quot; in this game as far as a &quot;rule&quot;. Some classes just get more feats than others and people on this board (mostly due to 3e and 4e) have taken to calling some of them &quot;bonus&quot;. WOtC said the reasons for it during the playtest I seem to recall, because they do not want to add encouragement to multiclassing and in fact made multiclassing an optional rule because it tends to cause more unintended results than straight classes. It didn't have anything to do with confusion. Multiclassing isn't expected in the adventure assumptions at all. Much like feats are not expected in the assumptions nor are magic items. But bottom line this system, relative to the core rules system, results in &quot;bonus&quot; (meaning EXTRA) feats. And it does. 1 is a bigger number than 0. Getting 1 when normally you'd get 0 is a bonus, meaning something in addition to what is expected or strictly due.I am not saying you cannot use this house rule, but I am making it clear it does change game assumptions in a meaningful way, by resulting in more ASIs for most multiclass characters than the rules intended (and it does that - I am not sure why people keep dancing around that...multiclass characters will in fact usually end up with more ASIs under this house rule than they would under the core rules). And I don't think it was done in that way for anything having to do with confusion. But, you should ask Mike Mearls on Twitter if you want to clarify that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7233994, member: 2525"] I am not confused about the idea. You're confused about my use of the word "bonus". You seem to be under the mistaken impression there is a rule called "bonus feats" in the core books. There is not. It's just common parlance on this message board. Bonus is just an English word. It means "extra" or as the dictionary defines it, "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due". That's how I am using it. There is no "rogue bonus feat" or "fighter bonus feat" in this game as far as a "rule". Some classes just get more feats than others and people on this board (mostly due to 3e and 4e) have taken to calling some of them "bonus". WOtC said the reasons for it during the playtest I seem to recall, because they do not want to add encouragement to multiclassing and in fact made multiclassing an optional rule because it tends to cause more unintended results than straight classes. It didn't have anything to do with confusion. Multiclassing isn't expected in the adventure assumptions at all. Much like feats are not expected in the assumptions nor are magic items. But bottom line this system, relative to the core rules system, results in "bonus" ([B]meaning EXTRA[/B]) feats. And it does. 1 is a bigger number than 0. Getting 1 when normally you'd get 0 [B]is a bonus[/B], meaning something in addition to what is expected or strictly due. I am not saying you cannot use this house rule, but I am making it clear it does change game assumptions in a meaningful way, by resulting in more ASIs for most multiclass characters than the rules intended (and it does that - I am not sure why people keep dancing around that...multiclass characters will in fact usually end up with more ASIs under this house rule than they would under the core rules). And I don't think it was done in that way for anything having to do with confusion. But, you should ask Mike Mearls on Twitter if you want to clarify that. [/QUOTE]

Verification