Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 2964796" data-attributes="member: 9002">The &quot;there are only 50 real feats among the 400 standard published feats&quot; got me thinking.I would agree as most did in the &quot;feat&quot; thread that D&amp;D is 90%+ of the time a combat-intensive game (by definition), thus those feats which are most useful are those which are directly applicable to combat or to resisting combat effects.With some exceptions, of course (not particularly numerous).Let's say tentatively that 80% of all published feats are &quot;weak&quot; and won't ever turn up in your game, barring a player's experimental PC build.Can the same be said for, well... spells?&nbsp; Is it true that we keep seeing the same &quot;optimal&quot; spells chosen time and again, and that no matter how many new spells are added to the game, they don't really increase the &quot;choice&quot; level much because they are not as useful/powerful as some of the default spell choice options?&nbsp;Now, thankfully, some core builds &quot;force&quot; players to choose various underutilized spells (specialist mages, for example).&nbsp; But even then these build often have many of the standard &quot;top 50&quot; spell choices.Now, as new spells are introduced into the game (wraithstrike) which are VERY powerful, they might slowly kick out some of the core &quot;standard&quot; spells -- but this is due, I would argue, to power creep more than any other factor.My point?I guess I agree with the previous poster that while there are many hundreds of feats, most of them are very lame and the &quot;true choices&quot; are far fewer - say 50.&nbsp; Same for spells; thousands out there, while the real choices (for any given spellcasting class) are much more limited -- say 50.What I mean is that most sorcerers have chosen their spells from the &quot;top 50.&quot;&nbsp; Ditto abjuration specialists, and illusionists, and etc.&nbsp; Each has their &quot;top 50&quot; which -- while not written in stone -- is pretty well established.If I see a cleric, I pretty much know what spells he will bring to the table... the &quot;top 50&quot; cleric spells.I guess I'm pondering the &quot;viablility&quot; options.How many feats are really &quot;viable&quot; thus real choices?How many spells?How many weapons?How many classes or PRC's?How many skills?My gut feeling is that I see the same types of weapons, skills, classes, spells, and feats endlessly reduplicated.&nbsp; There is the occasional (welcomed!) odd-ball... but sadly they are very rare.Is 3.5 a system with a few much-used and abused &quot;real choices&quot; and an endless ever-expanding list of &quot;non-viable&quot; alternatives (spells, feats, weapons, classes...)?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 2964796, member: 9002"] The "there are only 50 real feats among the 400 standard published feats" got me thinking. I would agree as most did in the "feat" thread that D&D is 90%+ of the time a combat-intensive game (by definition), thus those feats which are most useful are those which are directly applicable to combat or to resisting combat effects. With some exceptions, of course (not particularly numerous). Let's say tentatively that 80% of all published feats are "weak" and won't ever turn up in your game, barring a player's experimental PC build. Can the same be said for, well... spells? Is it true that we keep seeing the same "optimal" spells chosen time and again, and that no matter how many new spells are added to the game, they don't really increase the "choice" level much because they are not as useful/powerful as some of the default spell choice options? Now, thankfully, some core builds "force" players to choose various underutilized spells (specialist mages, for example). But even then these build often have many of the standard "top 50" spell choices. Now, as new spells are introduced into the game (wraithstrike) which are VERY powerful, they might slowly kick out some of the core "standard" spells -- but this is due, I would argue, to power creep more than any other factor. My point? I guess I agree with the previous poster that while there are many hundreds of feats, most of them are very lame and the "true choices" are far fewer - say 50. Same for spells; thousands out there, while the real choices (for any given spellcasting class) are much more limited -- say 50. What I mean is that most sorcerers have chosen their spells from the "top 50." Ditto abjuration specialists, and illusionists, and etc. Each has their "top 50" which -- while not written in stone -- is pretty well established. If I see a cleric, I pretty much know what spells he will bring to the table... the "top 50" cleric spells. I guess I'm pondering the "viablility" options. How many feats are really "viable" thus real choices? How many spells? How many weapons? How many classes or PRC's? How many skills? My gut feeling is that I see the same types of weapons, skills, classes, spells, and feats endlessly reduplicated. There is the occasional (welcomed!) odd-ball... but sadly they are very rare. Is 3.5 a system with a few much-used and abused "real choices" and an endless ever-expanding list of "non-viable" alternatives (spells, feats, weapons, classes...)? [/QUOTE]

Verification