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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5598972" data-attributes="member: 71571">But there isn't a way to get feats that are static bonuses for players who like status bonus feats without HAVING status bonus feats.  It's not the feats themselves that are the problem.[quoteIt's a siloing project. A choice between static bonuses is fine, a choice between character options is fine, but a choice between static bonuses and character options is the old "Do I make an effective character, or do I make the character with the interesting story" false dichotomy.</blockquote>Your language betrays the mentality and logical fallacy.  Characters do not need all those feats to be effective.  There is no choice between 'effective' and 'interesting.'  The choice is between 'power gaming' and 'interesting.'  Between 'munchkin' and 'interesting.'Taking a handful of feats is absolutely fine.  Taking ALL of them simply because you're afraid of being ineffective in a system where that simply is not the case?  It's irrational.If you can't call a spade a spade, then you're not in a position to truly solve the 'problem.'  And the 'problem' is that power gamers want their cake and eat it too.  And nothing more than that.You do NOT need those feats to be effective.  The dichotomy you present is a lie.  You are choosing between powergaming and interesting feats, and that is, quite simply, a fair choice to make.  And it DOES depend on campaign.Why?  It just supports a lie.Why?  It just supports a lie.DMs should always be involved in the player's character design.  This is a truism in every rpg ever made.  D&D4th edition is not magically different.Yes, it's called the DM doing his job.  The DM can sit there and say 'Dude, you're pretty much far enough there, calm down and take some other <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, you are ripping through the game' to the power gamer and say 'Dude, you should probably take a couple feats to make your concept represent itself better in combat.  It's a great concept, let's get its execution uo.' to the other guyThat's one of the jobs of the DM, and has always been a valuable skill in keeping party unity in games where this is possible.  You do it in D&D, you do it in Vampire, you do it in Shadowrun, you do it in EVERY GAME.How is fourth edition D&D any different from every game in that respect?  It isn't.  And what about balancing a party of power gamers vs a party of interesting feat-takers?  Who cares, they are two different styles supported by the game system and there is no problem here.Wher conflicting styles mix in a party, there needs to be comprimise.  That's the DM's job to assist with if the players can't.  There are many ways to do that.[/QUOTE]

Verification