Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6615119" data-attributes="member: 6689464">I get it, but you don't need to be as permissive as me, if you don't feel like it. Feats by themselves don't bring that much weirdness to the table. But rereading your OP, I notice how you worry about loss of flexibility, but I don't see how removing polearm master will make a dedicated halberd player to just  ditch it when a flametongue pops up in treasure. Personally if I was the only weapon user and liked polearms and then the DM kept just giving magic sword after magic sword but no polearms I would start  thinking he wants to tell me how to play my character. The truth is, as a DM you can give whatever you want to your players, but you can't force them to like it, if your fighter is just not interested in magic swords -maybe even from aesthetics-, every sword will be vendor trash anyway. And who knows? maybe the rogue will like the flametongue if the fighter passes it. And bow users aren't likely to want to shift weapons just because, the bow is very iconic as a weapon. If you are still not convinced, then remove the offending feats but leave the rest, not all of them are about combat, many have uses for exploration, and some others bring passive benefits -like the one to train new weapons, or new skills, or ritual caster-. Losing the chance of having those perks instead of the compulsory boring +1 to a key stat is a pity. Oh, and one more thing, sometimes you just want to build an archer using a non-fighting class, or a polearm user, or a dualwielder. In that case you can't ever get good at it without feats -or multiclassing-. The iconic rapier and dagger swashbuckler isn't possible either -though Dualwielder opens up the more powerful rapier/rapier combo-.But what if maxing the primary stat itself isn't attractive?</blockquote>

Verification