Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique(Real)" data-source="post: 8745268" data-attributes="member: 7032563">IMO feat chains should be thematic chains, not 'power chains'.Feat A is about as useful and power as other feats available at the given time.Feat B (which is a 'follow up') to feat A, is about as useful and powerful as other feats available at the given time.Having A be weaker because B is stronger is a form of 'balance' that harkens back to much earlier editions where a Wizard was a [carry] class and then became the [awesome] class if it survived long enough. You have to be bad now (for who knows how long) to be better then.Which leads to the obvious problem of : well, if you're stronger [then], that can easily lead to problems at the table - seeing as you're stronger that the other players. If you're not stronger [then], then why did you have to be weaker [before]... ?This type of approach works very well when the delay between the time-states is small. In 5e, the delay between the acquisition of feats, is not quick enough to make this work IMO. And that's not even talking about the fact that [then] might never happen...Of course, some people enjoy this approach - or have the conditions required to have it be fun - and good on them. But I do not wish for the general game to be headed in this direction.</blockquote>