Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5015747" data-attributes="member: 4937">A little.  Because if you start introducing systems to give away small benefits outside the normal class based system, then I'm rather courious where it stops.I'm still not understanding you.  You're running away from me.  Your base speed is 30, and my base speed is 30.  You have a 10' lead and you run 120' on your turn, putting you 130' away.  On my turn, I take the run action.  Because I have the Run feat, I can go 150'.  On my turn I run into your square and perform an overrun.  If I win the strength contest, you go prone and are subject to attack in the following rounds.  If on the other hand you had the Run feat, and I didn't, then you'd run away and I couldn't catch you. And in any event, a feat point system doesn't fix the complaint.  The real problem is that chasing someone down is harder than it should be.  We need better rules for tackling, armed overruns, etc. - not a feat point system.It is if the game is only going to go 3 or so levels.  That's the whole idea of scalability.  The feat is fairly balanced at 1st level, but not so much at 10th or 20th.  If the game is only going 1 level, then toughness is one of the best feats in the game.  You can demonstrate this by pitting 3rd level 'gladiators' against each other and trying to figure out whose feats add the most utility.   And for a 1st level wizard or sorcerer, even the 3 hp of toughness are very very welcome.I'm not understanding why you are disagreeing with me here.   Didn't I say that the feat should scale?  The point of this conversation is to demonstrate that by and large, feat points wouldn't be needed to resolve the problem of weak feats.   That virtually everyone agrees that the feat should scale I take as evidence of this.Err... so?  Naturally you'd love to have what is further down a feat chain.  Naturally, I'd love to have Spring Attack at first level and without buying what came before it.  Feat chains should have big rewards at the end of them. There are other considerations here.  Feat chains/trees exist because the ability to do Y implies skill with X, so X is considered a prerequiste of Y (like point blank shot as the basis of ranged feats).  Also feat chains exist to limit some feats to exceptional characters, like spring attack rewards 13 dex by way of dodge.  Also, you might want to push some abilities out to higher levels.And I see no indication that a feat points system addresses the complaint I'm seeing here.  Power Attack is a great feat.  Just because you have a build in which it is not optimal doesn't mean it should be priced less.No it isn't.  But even more importantly than the wands, the wizard really needs defensive items.  If the bracers of defence, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor aren't available from your local walmart, you'll probably consider making them.  The fighter can get by at low levels without alot of magic.  It's only at high levels that the fighter really starts needing magical defenses.  With the wizard, it's quite the reverse. I've never seen wizards (or clerics) become the weapons manufacturer for the whole party, but I have seen them spend alot of time crafting minor items for themselves.  Most importantly, if this was really a problem, the solution would be reducing the XP required to craft items, not a feat point buy system that would fail to alleviate the complaints you have AND introduce greater complexity.This makes no sense.  Feats are options.  What's wrong with making the new options feats?  Why do we have to invent a new category for options beyond the one we already have?   What could you possibly want to add that couldn't be a feat?</blockquote>

Verification