Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 7357946" data-attributes="member: 1003">I hear you. I get it. I still disagree. In a game like D&amp;D, well designed Feats are like customized class abilities. They don't restrict anyone, but give you something that goes above and beyond what's normal. Just look at the Mobile Feat and the Monk's Unarmored Movement. Any game should have basic rules about &quot;This is how fast you move&quot; and &quot;You can run this fast in short bursts for this amount of time&quot;. Feats and class abilities should ideally only let you exceed the standard, without preventing anyone else from playing the standard. I'll point out how the below works with the Feats you cite.Answer to Question 1: Yes.Answer to Question 2: No.The proper way to read this Feat, IMO, is by inserting &quot;automatically&quot; after the word &quot;can&quot; in the first sentence, or by inserting &quot;without making a Perform check&quot; at the end it.Eh, no. I think this Feat is well designed. Temporary HP is a good thing. One of the most important D&amp;D things that 5E is missing, IMO, is Morale rules for NPCs and Monsters. A standard Charisma (Persuasion) check should give your hirelings a boost on their Morale check, but THP should be reserved for spells, Feats, and class abilities.Again, like the Actor feat, the implied reading is &quot;automatically, without needing to roll, without a chance of failure&quot;.As someone who actually works with cryptography in my day job ... no, I would not allow an untrained person to make a cipher more complicated than alphanumeric substitution. It's actually really hard to make a cipher that isn't trivial to break.What I would allow, is for PCs without this Feat to be trained in the use of an encryption method by someone who has the Linguist Feat. You do need to be a cryptographer to invent Enigma, but you don't need to be a cryptographer to use one. Proficiency in the use of a single Tool shouldn't take more than a couple days to a month.No, redirecting attacks is clearly within the realm of Feats and Class Abilities, not &quot;do whatever the hell you want&quot;.I mean, sure, if you're just going to ignore the RAW. I guess if we're ignoring RAW, then Feats are definitely restrictive and I can see where you're coming from. But the PHB pg. 195 says &quot;If you are hidden ... when you make your attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 7357946, member: 1003"] I hear you. I get it. I still disagree. In a game like D&D, [B][I]well designed[/I][/B] Feats are like customized class abilities. They don't restrict anyone, but give you something that goes above and beyond what's normal. Just look at the Mobile Feat and the Monk's Unarmored Movement. Any game should have basic rules about "This is how fast you move" and "You can run this fast in short bursts for this amount of time". Feats and class abilities should ideally only let you exceed the standard, without preventing anyone else from playing the standard. I'll point out how the below works with the Feats you cite. Answer to Question 1: Yes. Answer to Question 2: No. The proper way to read this Feat, IMO, is by inserting "automatically" after the word "can" in the first sentence, or by inserting "without making a Perform check" at the end it. Eh, no. I think this Feat is well designed. Temporary HP is a good thing. One of the most important D&D things that 5E is missing, IMO, is Morale rules for NPCs and Monsters. A standard Charisma (Persuasion) check should give your hirelings a boost on their Morale check, but THP should be reserved for spells, Feats, and class abilities. Again, like the Actor feat, the implied reading is "automatically, without needing to roll, without a chance of failure". As someone who actually works with cryptography in my day job ... no, I would not allow an untrained person to make a cipher more complicated than alphanumeric substitution. It's actually really hard to make a cipher that isn't trivial to break. What I would allow, is for PCs without this Feat to be trained in the use of an encryption method by someone who has the Linguist Feat. You do need to be a cryptographer to invent Enigma, but you don't need to be a cryptographer to use one. Proficiency in the use of a single Tool shouldn't take more than a couple days to a month. No, redirecting attacks is clearly within the realm of Feats and Class Abilities, not "do whatever the hell you want". I mean, sure, if you're just going to ignore the RAW. I guess if we're ignoring RAW, then Feats are definitely restrictive and I can see where you're coming from. But the PHB pg. 195 says "If you are hidden ... when you make your attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses." [/QUOTE]

Verification