Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7941485" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I agree.&nbsp; Let's say you even did something simple like ... add more feats.&nbsp; Okay, great.&nbsp; Add a bunch of feats, everybody gets a feat every 2 character levels.&nbsp; Assuming you're okay with some PCs getting two feats per level pretty simple.But ... then you have a cascading effect.&nbsp; Suddenly PCs are more powerful (or why bother?).&nbsp; So the encounter calculations are even more unbalanced.&nbsp; Then people are going to complain because the monsters should have feats too.&nbsp; Oh, and what does all of this do to the balance of classes? Are there enough feats for fighters to take?&nbsp; Are they just going to add back in feat taxes like we had in 3.5?Then there's the added layer of confusion.&nbsp; Joe wants to join Sarah's group but she's using these new alternate feat rules so he's less likely to play because of the added technical mastery needed.That's with a really, really simple change.&nbsp; I can't imagine how you could have a system where you replace entire sections of the book and have any hope of balance, coherence or simplicity.Could we use some different optional tactical rules?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But I think they'd be pretty easy to house rule, I'm sure there are some options available out there by third parties.&nbsp; The fact that people don't like the existing optional rules from the DMG kind of makes a point: you are never going to satisfy everyone with a single game.&nbsp; The best you can do is provide a solid framework that loans itself to house rules and customization.&nbsp; I think 5E does that better than at least the previous two editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7941485, member: 6801845"] I agree. Let's say you even did something simple like ... add more feats. Okay, great. Add a bunch of feats, everybody gets a feat every 2 character levels. Assuming you're okay with some PCs getting two feats per level pretty simple. But ... then you have a cascading effect. Suddenly PCs are more powerful (or why bother?). So the encounter calculations are even more unbalanced. Then people are going to complain because the monsters should have feats too. Oh, and what does all of this do to the balance of classes? Are there enough feats for fighters to take? Are they just going to add back in feat taxes like we had in 3.5? Then there's the added layer of confusion. Joe wants to join Sarah's group but she's using these new alternate feat rules so he's less likely to play because of the added technical mastery needed. That's with a really, really simple change. I can't imagine how you could have a system where you replace entire sections of the book and have any hope of balance, coherence or simplicity. Could we use some different optional tactical rules? Sure. But I think they'd be pretty easy to house rule, I'm sure there are some options available out there by third parties. The fact that people don't like the existing optional rules from the DMG kind of makes a point: you are never going to satisfy everyone with a single game. The best you can do is provide a solid framework that loans itself to house rules and customization. I think 5E does that better than at least the previous two editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification