Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6645454" data-attributes="member: 42582">This reminds a bit of discussions about caster power at mid-to-upper levels in 3E/PF.Given that all these issues involve the resolution of declared actions, of course they are, in some sense, of the players' own devising. As a limit case, if a player never declares attacks for his/her PC these feats won't cause any issues! Probably no one is playing the game at that limit point, but I'm not sure on what basis you are saying that some deviations from the limit are typical and some are aberrant and the fault of the players.D&amp;D - especially in the post-AD&amp;D era - presents itself, in part, as a type of optimisation puzzle, in the sense that a fair bit of PC building and game play involves manipulating numbers, with bigger being better. What is your threshold for acceptable or wrong-headed solutions to the puzzle that the game poses?Well this goes back to the question I posted not far upthread, and to which&nbsp; [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] replied. (And from his most recent post, [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] seems to agree.)If you nerf the feats, you establish a degree of balance between various damage-dealing warrior builds but at the risk of underpowering warriors. (This raises an issue about non-feat-using games: are warriors automatically underpowered in those games, without these damage boost feats to support them?)If you keep the feats as is, you make a couple of damage-dealing paths clearly superior, which suggests the alternative option of introducing some new feats for duelists and two-weapon fighters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6645454, member: 42582"] This reminds a bit of discussions about caster power at mid-to-upper levels in 3E/PF. Given that all these issues involve the resolution of declared actions, of course they are, in some sense, of the players' own devising. As a limit case, if a player never declares attacks for his/her PC these feats won't cause any issues! Probably no one is playing the game at that limit point, but I'm not sure on what basis you are saying that some deviations from the limit are typical and some are aberrant and the fault of the players. D&D - especially in the post-AD&D era - presents itself, in part, as a type of optimisation puzzle, in the sense that a fair bit of PC building and game play involves manipulating numbers, with bigger being better. What is your threshold for acceptable or wrong-headed solutions to the puzzle that the game poses? Well this goes back to the question I posted not far upthread, and to which [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] replied. (And from his most recent post, [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION] seems to agree.) If you nerf the feats, you establish a degree of balance between various damage-dealing warrior builds but at the risk of underpowering warriors. (This raises an issue about non-feat-using games: are warriors automatically underpowered in those games, without these damage boost feats to support them?) If you keep the feats as is, you make a couple of damage-dealing paths clearly superior, which suggests the alternative option of introducing some new feats for duelists and two-weapon fighters. [/QUOTE]

Verification