Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7230367" data-attributes="member: 12731">You deserve a proper reply. TwoSix has touched upon this but to explain: I'm not looking at this from the perspective you are.You have found an archetype for which my feat would be a must have. In my opinion, that does not make it overpowered, unbalanced or otherwise too strong. Why?Because your archetype doesn't become too strong. (Compared to other builds)Look at this way: imagine ten different kinds of trees, all different. Wondrous diversity and flexibility.Now, imagine if some trees are taller than others. Probably still just fine - I can play a slightly shorter tree because it gives me satisfaction, even if another player chooses a slightly taller one.But now imagine if some trees are twice or even three times as tall as the tree with average height. And imagine if one of the trees is much shorter than this average.Suddenly tree height becomes a problem, since it is no fun to find out that your favorite build gives you significantly less oomph and spotlight time (mainly talking combat here).---As I see it, no character that picks my Crossbow Expert feat will become a tree tall enough to be a problem, since it automatically means you can't use Extra Attack. And the builds that remain are simply not very tall trees, in my opinion. In fact, the Rogue (perhaps the tallest one out of the builds that don't use Extra Attack yet still use weapons) could stand to be a bit taller, in my opinion.This does not mean I can't see your point: that for a specific build the feat becomes a must-have. It just means that's not one of my design criteria. It's just like TwoSix says, game balance is about the extremes. A must-have feat is only a problem (to me) if it makes people not particularly interested in the concept take it anyway, because it enables their tree to grow much taller than most.  ---I hope you now see that I respect and understand your feedback, even if I won't change my feat because of it. In fact, it's the opposite. What you're telling me is that the feat works just as well as I hoped it would - it makes a short tree grow into a moderately tall one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, from the POV of that short tree it might come across as a must-have, but it still allows the short tree to be much less short, so hopefully it's not all bad?  What you're telling me is that it would have been better if either the tree wasn't so short in the first place, or if there were more than one way to grow the tree. I can't help you there - I can only say that going from zero ways to grow the tree to "only" one can't be a reason to change or remove the feat, since it has so many other intended usages.Best regards,Zapp</blockquote>

Verification