Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9290309" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Feats are rare, but since this is a general &quot;blanket-coverage&quot; concept, I don't mind it being a feat.Fighting Styles, Manuevers, Invocations, and other class features are feats, so a &quot;Jack-of-All-Trades&quot; feat makes sense to me.I've taken it twice, and I know of (at least) three other players who've taken it. It has always been for skill monkey PCs who want to have better skill coverage. I think most players shun it because way too many IMO focus more on combat-related feats, which I think is a pity. The combat feats are the least favourite for myself.See above. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, if it applies to all ability checks, and not just skill-related ones, than I could see value in it.This would make it useful as it would help in combat situations as well, for the people who are hyper combat-focused. It would add to initiative, Strength (Athletics) for grappling or escaping (or Dexterity (Acrobatics) as well), and probably more if I think about it. Getting a +1 bonus (eventually better) to those things, without having to devote a skill proficiency to them all, is likely valuable to people who want it.Again, for me, yes. In general, probably not.I don't like giving classes even more features.I don't like &quot;stepping on toes&quot; of other class's features, especially without a significant cost (such as a feat).I think we can all certainly agree feats are a valuable commodity. So (again) for me, this would meet that requirement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9290309, member: 7037866"] Feats are rare, but since this is a general "blanket-coverage" concept, I don't mind it being a feat. Fighting Styles, Manuevers, Invocations, and other class features are feats, so a "Jack-of-All-Trades" feat makes sense to me. I've taken it twice, and I know of (at least) three other players who've taken it. It has always been for skill monkey PCs who want to have better skill coverage. I think most players shun it because [I]way too many[/I] IMO focus more on combat-related feats, which I think is a pity. The combat feats are the least favourite for myself. See above. :) Well, if it applies to [I]all[/I] ability checks, and not just skill-related ones, than I could see value in it. This would make it useful as it would help in combat situations as well, for the people who are hyper combat-focused. It would add to initiative, Strength (Athletics) for grappling or escaping (or Dexterity (Acrobatics) as well), and probably more if I think about it. Getting a +1 bonus (eventually better) to those things, without having to devote a skill proficiency to them all, is likely valuable to people who want it. Again, for me, yes. In general, probably not. I don't like giving classes even more features. I don't like "stepping on toes" of other class's features, especially without a significant cost (such as a feat). I think we can all certainly agree feats are a valuable commodity. So (again) for me, this would meet that requirement. [/QUOTE]

Verification