Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6647115" data-attributes="member: 2011">I think it depends a bit on campaign and DM style.For my table, I like dungeons (crypts, barrow mounds, caverns, mazes, whatever) with a lot of encounters. I prefer the other two pillars to lead up to the dungeon. It is not always this way, but often this way. With this style, it makes more sense to me to not do anything in the house rules until a given player decides to take a given feat. Then, I will probably buff up it a little if it is a terrible one and pull it in a little if it is awesome.In my experience, players really enjoy taking a feat over an ability score increase. There is no way that I would remove feats. But, that does not mean that I will allow them to run roughshod over the game. Since I will not be removing feats, I think that having certain styles be a bit weaker until level 4 or 5 is totally ok. PCs are still wet behind the ears and learning their craft in the first tier.Since I do have this particular style where spell casters cannot just burn through all of their spells in the first encounter, I do think all of this is fairly well balanced. Celtavian appears to run a game or in games where there are fewer more daunting encounters. In such a model, the spell casters might be casting a spell and not a cantrip nearly every round. In such a campaign world, then there could be more of a concern that the melee types are being outclassed. But, I do not think that 5E is designed with that type of encounter design in mind. It's flexible enough to handle it, but the DM has to realize that it is his own style that is allowing the spell casters to shine more. That's his decision. He is the one who is skewing this, not the players. Because he is doing this, he might just have to beef up the melee feats a bit to make up for it.</blockquote>

Verification