Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7357710" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!As many folks probably know, I don't like nor use feats (my players feel the same way). That said, the reason why we don't use feats in 5e is that we found that they ended up 'limiting' character concepts far more often then they helped create them. The whole &quot;if you don't have this feat, you can't do it&quot; thing was one of the main reasons why we hated them in 3.x and PF. With 5e this didn't feel quite as bad, but it was still there.How did we feel it 'limited' characters? Let me 'splain...no, would take to long. Let me sum up: How many &quot;big strong damage-dealing warriors&quot; (fighters, barbarians, etc) take either GWM or PAM? How many &quot;nimble rangers&quot; take SS or CBM? How many &quot;AC front-wall defending warriors&quot; take some sort of Armor Mastery or Shield Master?It's kind of a trick question, because the answer is almost always &quot;all of them&quot;. That is not &quot;creative&quot;. It is not &quot;diverse&quot;. It's not &quot;unique and interesting character&quot; type building...it's &quot;game mechanics to guarantee I'm always seen as a [insert common class/race build]&quot;. Without feats you can have two fighters in a group that both use a two-handed sword. Maybe one has a 17 strength and the other has a 14 strength. They are both seen as &quot;good at dealing damage&quot;...because a +1 th/dmg isn't honestly going to be noticed most of the time. Now, at 4th level, one of them takes GWM. BAM! Now that guy can take a -5 penalty, but suddenly LEAP up in damage by 10 points. Suddenly it now becomes &quot;Bill is good at damage, but Fred is REALLY good...much better than Bill&quot;. ..POOF!.. The player playing Bill has just had his character reduced to second-fiddle, the 'back up damage dealer', they second-choice...Bill is the &quot;weak fighter&quot; all of a sudden.That's why we don't use feats.They don't encourage diversity in character builds. They encourage/require characters to all take the same general feats over and over, based on class...not based on any sort of character history, background, or personality. If you want to be a &quot;damage dealing&quot; fighter, you WILL have to take one of the feats that lets you do a LOT of damage...because every other &quot;damage dealing fighters&quot; will have it. PC or NPC, if you don't take GWM or PAM, you will be seen as &quot;damage-dealing-fighter-LITE&quot;.That same sort of game mechanical 'outcome' gets even worse if you allow multiclassing and choices from books other than the core PHB. That's why if someone says &quot;I have a bladelock&quot;...you know EXACTLY what his likely race is, his classes, his choice of weapon, his choice of feats, his choice of spells, etc. Because if he doesn't have most/all of those &quot;options&quot;...then he will be seen as &quot;not a REAL bladelock&quot;.Feats: Good idea...but once again, poorly implemented. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 7357710, member: 45197"] Hiya! As many folks probably know, I don't like nor use feats (my players feel the same way). That said, the reason why we don't use feats in 5e is that we found that they ended up 'limiting' character concepts far more often then they helped create them. The whole "if you don't have this feat, you can't do it" thing was one of the main reasons why we hated them in 3.x and PF. With 5e this didn't feel [I]quite[/I] as bad, but it was still there. How did we feel it 'limited' characters? Let me 'splain...no, would take to long. Let me sum up: How many "big strong damage-dealing warriors" (fighters, barbarians, etc) take either GWM or PAM? How many "nimble rangers" take SS or CBM? How many "AC front-wall defending warriors" take some sort of Armor Mastery or Shield Master? It's kind of a trick question, because the answer is almost always "all of them". That is not "creative". It is not "diverse". It's not "unique and interesting character" type building...it's "game mechanics to guarantee I'm always seen as a [insert common class/race build]". Without feats you can have two fighters in a group that both use a two-handed sword. Maybe one has a 17 strength and the other has a 14 strength. They are both seen as "good at dealing damage"...because a +1 th/dmg isn't honestly going to be noticed most of the time. Now, at 4th level, one of them takes GWM. BAM! Now that guy can take a -5 penalty, but suddenly LEAP up in damage by 10 points. Suddenly it now becomes "Bill is good at damage, but Fred is REALLY good...much better than Bill". ..POOF!.. The player playing Bill has just had his character reduced to second-fiddle, the 'back up damage dealer', they second-choice...Bill is the "weak fighter" all of a sudden. That's why we don't use feats. They don't encourage diversity in character builds. They encourage/require characters to all take the same general feats over and over, based on class...not based on any sort of character history, background, or personality. If you want to be a "damage dealing" fighter, you WILL have to take one of the feats that lets you do a LOT of damage...because every other "damage dealing fighters" will have it. PC or NPC, if you don't take GWM or PAM, you will be seen as "damage-dealing-fighter-LITE". That same sort of game mechanical 'outcome' gets even worse if you allow multiclassing and choices from books other than the core PHB. That's why if someone says "I have a bladelock"...you know EXACTLY what his likely race is, his classes, his choice of weapon, his choice of feats, his choice of spells, etc. Because if he doesn't have most/all of those "options"...then he will be seen as "not a REAL bladelock". Feats: Good idea...but once again, poorly implemented. :( ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification