Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6651179" data-attributes="member: 12731">Hussar (and Celtavian): this thread isn't about "the problems with Fighter". This thread isn't about taking many or few short rests.This thread is about the -5/+10 feats. It has clearly shown me that without feats, the game works well. But when you add feats, some bad things happen to the game:1) the Rogue's Sneak Attack isn't impressive anymore2) heck, even spellcaster top level damage isn't "rare and amazing" - it's just rare.3) choosing to fight sword-and-board or with two weapons lose steam completelyAll of this is caused by adding two feats to the game, and not those feats in their entirety, but the -5/+10 mechanism specifically.There have been several detractors, but none of you have addressed the core issue. (All the talk about your opponent's math errors does not mean your own position is right; all the talk about adventure composition and rest frequency is simply irrelevant to the question, the argument that rules fiddling is bad or wearysome still does not save a mistaken feat design; etc etc). Your arguments may be sound and right, but unless they specifically show that these feats work even for a group with experienced minmaxers, they're... irrelevant.Whenever an argument is made and several attempts to shoot it down are simply missing the mark makes for a pretty convincing argument there in fact is truth to that argument. This is so in this case. One more thing: I have yet too see somebody argue these feats ACTUALLY ADD VALUE to the game. Lots of chaff defending feats in general and trying to dissuade any house ruling discussion. But not a single poster have actually said these feats are good for the game. (The most I've heard is feats in general is good, or that there's nothing wrong with these feats)If you want one final shot at convincing me these feats are good as-is, you shall have it. But remember, what I want to see is an experienced DM telling me that their minmaxing group tried to abuse these feats and failed. THIS is what playtesting is, or should be. Testing the extreme cases. I am close to concluding WotC did what rpg companies have done many many MANY times over: dropping the ball on some serious playtesting. Relying too much on white-room analysis. Just like this thread: the DPR analysis looks fine. Yet, the feats are probably way too powerful in practical play in the hands of players who aren't shy of abusing them.It is much easier to believe too few playtesters stress-tested these feats for WotC to hear their conclusions, than for it to be true that the people who red-flag these feats are simply playing the game badwrongfun.</blockquote>

Verification