Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8269100" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I get that this is what many proponents of Feats (and MC, I suppose) &quot;see&quot; as a good thing. As a &quot;needed&quot; thing in order to more aptly distinguish, mechanically, a &quot;Fighter&quot; from an &quot;Archer&quot;. I get that mindset. The thing is...I, and my group, don't put much emphasis on the mechanics of the game as the &quot;default capability&quot; of a PC/NPC/Monster/etc. For us, a +2 is mechanically significant enough.For us, a Fighter who has taken the &quot;Archery&quot; fighting style is &quot;An Archer&quot;. A Fighter is not an archer...even though he knows how to shoot a bow, how to maintain the bow and, well, that's about it. When a fighter goes to buy a bow...he buys a bow. When an Archer goes to buy a bow...he knows what he's looking for, what is good, what is bad, what price is acceptable, etc. When a fighter enters an archery contest against archers...he will likely loose. He might make it one round in, maybe two (assuming all contestants are equivalent level)...but the actual Archer is the one who's going to get to the end. And yes, mechanically, it is because of that &quot;paltry +2&quot; (and the likely higher Dex than the Sword &amp; Shield fighter). That is more than enough for us.Additionally, the Archer just KNOWS stuff about archery related things and the S&amp;S Fighter just doesn't. I mean, I know how to shoot a bow. I've done it a few times. I'm no archer by any stretch of the imagination! If I was to go to an Archery tournament, I'd get hammered...I'd also sound like a complete idiot to the other Archers around when hanging out and &quot;talking shop&quot;. I'd have no clue what brands are good for X, what brands are good for Y, or why someone would want Bow Type ABC over Bow Type XYZ when going pheasant-hunting, let alone what kind of arrow to use. ... ... None of that would be &quot;mechanical&quot;, in game terms. It would be Roleplaying considerations and implied superiority. In my game, a Player who says &quot;I tell him to toss that apple up into the air, and I shoot the apple out of the air when he tosses it up&quot; would have me asking &quot;Are you an Archer? Do you have the Archery Fighting Style?&quot;. If the Player say says No, then &quot;Ok, AC20&quot;. If the Player says Yes, then &quot;Ok, you shoot the apple out of the air&quot;. Why? Because the Player of the Fighter is a Fighter...and 'archery' isn't his thing; but the Player of the Archer...Archery is his thing, so I give the benefit of the doubt and let the PC look cool because, honestly, the Archer hits targets like this all day long every day. This is no stressful situation and is something familiar enough to the Archer to be more or less &quot;routine&quot;. Now, if the Archer (or Fighter) wasn't prepared, and the guy tossing the apple up was just doing it to be cool and intimidating as he and his 'boys' threatened the Archer (or Fighter)...well NOW we need a roll for both; AC20. The Fighter shoots with his +2 and the Archer shoots with his +6...and I'm apt to give the Archer Advantage simply because it's an 'inanimate' object and the Archer can clearly see and guage where the apple is going to go.So, yeah. My DM'ing style obviously &quot;accounts&quot; for more than the Feat, and for games that have a DM that is more &quot;RAW&quot; over &quot;RAI&quot; or even &quot;RAD&quot; (Rules as Desired). But that's kinda the point; the way Feats are right now in 5e...they just do NOT work for us. They make every PC seem &quot;same-y&quot; or &quot;forced to comply&quot; with certain 'optimal Feat/MC choice builds', else the PC automatically be worse than every other PC/NPC that does have the 'required' Feat/MC/Build. I, and my group, much prefer a more &quot;role-playing centric&quot; take on PC's and their capabilities. Clear anything up...or did I just muddy the waters worse?^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 8269100, member: 45197"] Hiya! I get that this is what many proponents of Feats (and MC, I suppose) "see" as a good thing. As a "needed" thing in order to more aptly distinguish, mechanically, a "Fighter" from an "Archer". I get that mindset. The thing is...I, and my group, don't put much emphasis on the mechanics of the game as the "default capability" of a PC/NPC/Monster/etc. For us, a +2 is mechanically significant enough. For us, a Fighter who has taken the "Archery" fighting style is "An Archer". A Fighter is not an archer...even though he knows how to shoot a bow, how to maintain the bow and, well, that's about it. When a fighter goes to buy a bow...he buys a bow. When an Archer goes to buy a bow...he knows what he's looking for, what is good, what is bad, what price is acceptable, etc. When a fighter enters an archery contest against archers...he will likely loose. He might make it one round in, maybe two (assuming all contestants are equivalent level)...but the actual Archer is the one who's going to get to the end. And yes, mechanically, it is because of that "paltry +2" (and the likely higher Dex than the Sword & Shield fighter). That is more than enough for us. Additionally, the Archer just KNOWS stuff about archery related things and the S&S Fighter just doesn't. I mean, I know how to shoot a bow. I've done it a few times. I'm no archer by any stretch of the imagination! If I was to go to an Archery tournament, I'd get hammered...I'd also sound like a complete idiot to the other Archers around when hanging out and "talking shop". I'd have no clue what brands are good for X, what brands are good for Y, or why someone would want Bow Type ABC over Bow Type XYZ when going pheasant-hunting, let alone what kind of arrow to use. ... ... None of that would be "mechanical", in game terms. It would be Roleplaying considerations and implied superiority. In my game, a Player who says "I tell him to toss that apple up into the air, and I shoot the apple out of the air when he tosses it up" would have me asking "Are you an Archer? Do you have the Archery Fighting Style?". If the Player say says No, then "Ok, AC20". If the Player says Yes, then "Ok, you shoot the apple out of the air". Why? Because the Player of the Fighter is a Fighter...and 'archery' isn't his thing; but the Player of the Archer...Archery [I]is[/I] his thing, so I give the benefit of the doubt and let the PC look cool because, honestly, the Archer hits targets like this all day long every day. This is no stressful situation and is something familiar enough to the Archer to be more or less "routine". Now, if the Archer (or Fighter) wasn't prepared, and the guy tossing the apple up was just doing it to be cool and intimidating as he and his 'boys' threatened the Archer (or Fighter)...well NOW we need a roll for both; AC20. The Fighter shoots with his +2 and the Archer shoots with his +6...and I'm apt to give the Archer Advantage simply because it's an 'inanimate' object and the Archer can clearly see and guage where the apple is going to go. So, yeah. My DM'ing style obviously "accounts" for more than the Feat, and for games that have a DM that is more "RAW" over "RAI" or even "RAD" (Rules as Desired). But that's kinda the point; the way Feats are right now in 5e...they just do NOT work for us. They make every PC seem "same-y" or "forced to comply" with certain 'optimal Feat/MC choice builds', else the PC automatically be worse than every other PC/NPC that [I]does[/I] have the 'required' Feat/MC/Build. I, and my group, much prefer a more "role-playing centric" take on PC's and their capabilities. Clear anything up...or did I just muddy the waters worse? ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification