Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7357856">That wasn't my point.&nbsp; Mistwell's complaint is that the existence of certain feats encourages thinking that people without them cannot take those actions.BUT everyone gets feats.&nbsp; If the DM says Bob can't make an attempt without the feat, all Bob has to do is wait 3 levels to get his next feat and then he can.&nbsp; BUT if you were to bake the feat into a class, Bob would have to multiclass.&nbsp; Which is a different optional feature that may not be included in Bob's game.&nbsp; That feature could also be deep within that class, forcing Bob to wait a half-dozen or more levels to get it, potentially in a class that he has no interest in.&nbsp; IMO: the reason these feats were feats and not class features is simply because they are too generic.&nbsp; Like, if GWM was Fighter only, what Barbarians can't be great with big weapons?&nbsp; Or Paladins?&nbsp; I think the designers saw this and made them feats for exactly that reason.You only need to navigate the feats once.&nbsp; They aren't going to change between level-ups.&nbsp; (this is assuming we're keeping with the average 5E campaign timeline, not some super-long multi-decade game)&nbsp; Also, splat wasn't an issue Mistwell was complaining about.&nbsp; His complaint was about the first part, DM's thinking that people without certain feats couldn't do that thing at all.Or the DM could say &quot;NO, you need the feat.&quot; and not gauge anything at all.&nbsp; Well...we are talking about mechanical elements of the game.&nbsp; That speaks to the roll&nbsp;not the role.Forcing the GM to gauge a situation and see if a roll is appropriate speaks directly to the roll and the mechanics and is decidedly NOT fluff.&nbsp; How I attack with my weapons, that's fluff.&nbsp; How many attacks I make with my weapons, that is mechanics.&nbsp; Failure to differentiate between fluff and crunch increases complexity, it does not decrease it.&nbsp; LOLWUT.&nbsp; This just directly contradicted EVERYTHING you just wrote.Can people try anything in an attempt to be good at it?OrDo they have make specific build choices?Because you just spent half this post arguing the former, only to say &quot;Well they shoulda made the right build choices!&quot; Make up your mind, because the latter is exactly what Mistwell is arguing against.So everyone should follow specific build advice and make sure to choose the correct features?What ARE you arguing actually?&nbsp; Because I am totally lost at this point.&nbsp; Okay, I get it, you just hate feats.That wasn't Mistwells argument though.Next time warn me when you're going to tangent off like that.&nbsp; I'll remember not to engage in the unrelated tirades.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7357856"] That wasn't my point. Mistwell's complaint is that the existence of certain feats encourages thinking that people without them cannot take those actions. BUT everyone gets feats. If the DM says Bob can't make an attempt without the feat, all Bob has to do is wait 3 levels to get his next feat and then he can. BUT if you were to bake the feat into a class, Bob would have to multiclass. Which is a [I]different[/I] optional feature that may not be included in Bob's game. That feature could also be [I]deep[/I] within that class, forcing Bob to wait a half-dozen or more levels to get it, potentially in a class that he has no interest in. IMO: the reason these feats were feats and not class features is simply because they are too generic. Like, if GWM was Fighter only, what Barbarians can't be great with big weapons? Or Paladins? I think the designers saw this and made them feats for exactly that reason. You only need to navigate the feats once. They aren't going to change between level-ups. (this is assuming we're keeping with the average 5E campaign timeline, not some super-long multi-decade game) Also, [I]splat[/I] wasn't an issue Mistwell was complaining about. His complaint was about the first part, DM's thinking that people without certain feats couldn't do that thing at all. Or the DM could say "NO, you need the feat." and not gauge anything at all. Well...we [I]are[/I] talking about mechanical elements of the game. That speaks to the [I]roll[/I] not the role. Forcing the GM to gauge a situation and see if a roll is appropriate speaks directly to the [I]roll[/I] and the [I]mechanics[/I] and is decidedly NOT fluff. How I attack with my weapons, that's fluff. How many attacks I make with my weapons, that is [I]mechanics[/I]. Failure to differentiate between fluff and crunch increases complexity, it does not decrease it. LOLWUT. This just directly contradicted EVERYTHING you just wrote. Can people try anything in an attempt to be good at it? Or Do they have make specific build choices? Because you just spent half this post arguing the former, only to say "Well they shoulda made the right build choices!" Make up your mind, because the latter is exactly what Mistwell is arguing against. So everyone should follow specific build advice and make sure to choose the correct features? What ARE you arguing actually? Because I am [I]totally[/I] lost at this point. Okay, I get it, you just hate feats. That wasn't Mistwells argument though. Next time warn me when you're going to tangent off like that. I'll remember not to engage in the unrelated tirades. [/QUOTE]

Verification