Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7357755">Let me put it this way:As a long-time optimizer, the specific build of my PC has very little to do with who they are as a character.&nbsp; Now, maybe I'm the odd man out but it seems to me that all something like GWM or Shield Master says about your character is that they're good with these things.&nbsp; Doesn't say how you got good with them.&nbsp; Doesn't say why you're good with them.&nbsp; Just says you are.&nbsp; The how, the why, those are the elements you fill in through role-play.Sure, certain classes imply certain things about those hows and whys but those implications are often very small.&nbsp; Heck, Backgrounds say more about who your character is than their build.&nbsp; Hermit, for example, says a whole lot of things!&nbsp; Far Traveler on the other hand says very little.But GWM?&nbsp; That says nothing about your character other than you are skilled with big weapons.Mmm kinda lost my train of thought there...So when people like [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] or [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] say that feats can restrict mechanical options, I can at least see their argument, especially when it plays to a much more &quot;Try anything!&quot; style of D&amp;D (which I have been part of and didn't particularly care for).&nbsp; But when the argument becomes &quot;These mechanical options limit my role-play options!&quot; I'm just left scratching my head.&nbsp; I get it if someone feels pressured to take GWM when they really want to use *something else* because they're being pressured to increase their DPR...but that's not an issue with rules or options, that's an issue with table behaviour.&nbsp; It's one reason you'll rarely see healers, tanks or support-style characters in my games because I'm very big on &quot;Play what you want to play.&quot;&nbsp; And I really don't see how, when someone like [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] comes along and says that &quot;fewer options increase creativity&quot;.&nbsp; Regardless of if we're talking about feats, races, classes or whatever.&nbsp; I mean...I guess people could feel limited by the built-in fluff of a race?&nbsp; But does that mean a fluff-less race (humans I guess?) produces more creativity?&nbsp; I think that depends a lot on the person in question.&nbsp; But some of these statements seem so matter-of-fact &quot;X does Y.&quot;&nbsp; Not &quot;I enjoy X over Y.&quot; or &quot;IME X works better for me than Y.&quot; It's &quot;fewer options increase creativity.&quot; Period.And I find that view puzzling.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7357755"] Let me put it this way: As a long-time optimizer, the specific build of my PC has [I]very little[/I] to do with who they are as a character. Now, maybe I'm the odd man out but it seems to me that all something like GWM or Shield Master says about your character is that they're good with these things. Doesn't say [I]how[/I] you got good with them. Doesn't say [I]why[/I] you're good with them. Just says you [I]are[/I]. The [I]how[/I], the [I]why[/I], those are the elements you fill in through role-play. Sure, certain classes imply certain things about those hows and whys but those implications are often very small. Heck, Backgrounds say more about who your [I]character[/I] is than their build. Hermit, for example, says a whole lot of things! Far Traveler on the other hand says very little. But GWM? That says [I]nothing[/I] about your character other than you are skilled with big weapons. Mmm kinda lost my train of thought there... So when people like [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] or [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] say that feats can restrict [I]mechanical[/I] options, I can at least see their argument, especially when it plays to a much more "Try anything!" style of D&D (which I have been part of and didn't particularly care for). But when the argument becomes "These mechanical options limit my role-play options!" I'm just left scratching my head. I get it if someone feels pressured to take GWM when they really want to use *something else* because they're being pressured to increase their DPR...but that's not an issue with rules or options, that's an issue with table behaviour. It's one reason you'll rarely see healers, tanks or support-style characters in my games because I'm very big on "Play what you want to play." And I really don't see how, when someone like [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] comes along and says that "fewer options increase creativity". Regardless of if we're talking about feats, races, classes or whatever. I mean...I guess people could feel limited by the built-in fluff of a race? But does that mean a fluff-less race (humans I guess?) produces more creativity? I think that depends a lot on the person in question. But some of these statements seem so matter-of-fact "X does Y." Not "I enjoy X over Y." or "IME X works better for me than Y." It's "fewer options increase creativity." Period. And I find that view puzzling. [/QUOTE]

Verification