Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6917377" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, or the possibility that the game might need to cater to more than just an assumed typical group, which certainly seemed to be the case for an edition hoping to re-unite a fractured fanbase.  Doesn't sound either probable, nor very flattering.  But then mind-reading rarely does.That's... odd.  It looks like you're building a condition that could result in nothing ever being judged 'broken.'  Is that the idea?  The whole concept is just some kind of maya to be seen through by the enlightened?That'd be the 'reward for system mastery' reasoning, yes.  More likely if Monte Cook had stayed on, I'd think, but not entirely implausible.  I mean, 5e is for fans of all past editions, feats were introduced by 3.0, and 3e fans do like their system mastery, and we are talking about feats that are powerful in a combo.  Yeah, actually pretty plausible. Ah, that's relative, I guess.  Gimping yourself relative the expected challenges under the presented encounter guidelines?  Not likely in 5e (though those guidelines can break high as well as low).  Gimping yourself relative to the next guy, if the next guy's a rabid optimizer?  OK, maybe, iff the feat's as high-impact as all that.'Admitted?'  I'm hardly ashamed of not opting into feats & MCing.  Heck, I'm afraid I might be emoting a certain amount of conceit for that decision. My theory is that they TPK a lot because I run so many 1st-level one shots.  But it needs more testing, especially at different levels.  Lots more very entertaining testing.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification