Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="freebfrost" data-source="post: 2923672" data-attributes="member: 3713">Statistics alone will not provide you with the complete picture.&nbsp; When I instituted a feat/level rule in my last campaign, I had the exact same discussion with players - down to the level of the exact percentage change for using feats every other level, every level, etc.&nbsp; And now that the campaign is a year along, not one of the them has anything but praise for the system.&nbsp; Why?Feat chains.&nbsp; Take your stereotypical archer fighter build - that's an effective long-range fighter, but they aren't quite so good in melee because they've focused solely on archery.But now you have more feats for the fighter - they can be a tank AND an archer, or an even more supremely skilled archer, or whatever.&nbsp; And since general &quot;fighting&quot; feats make up a lot of the feat trees, this allows fighters to more fully explore their choices.Even with a feat/level, you simply aren't going to get many wizards taking power attack/cleave/great cleave - they'll end up taking more useful feats that are usually overlooked in terms of maximizing a character's capabilities in the party.&nbsp; While sometimes you'll get a roleplayer who decides their 6th level druid needs to take skill focus, most druids are taking natural spell.As far as making it harder for the DM to run - no one says you have to fill out every encounter to the nth degree.&nbsp; If it's a main character, then sure, fill out every feat logically - otherwise, throw in a feat on the fly for a monster - say skill focus (climb) for a bear or lion.&nbsp; And ignore the rest - assume they took a &quot;bad&quot; feat.&nbsp; Someone has to take bad feats sometimes right?&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="freebfrost, post: 2923672, member: 3713"] Statistics alone will not provide you with the complete picture. When I instituted a feat/level rule in my last campaign, I had the exact same discussion with players - down to the level of the exact percentage change for using feats every other level, every level, etc. And now that the campaign is a year along, not one of the them has anything but praise for the system. Why? Feat chains. Take your stereotypical archer fighter build - that's an effective long-range fighter, but they aren't quite so good in melee because they've focused solely on archery. But now you have more feats for the fighter - they can be a tank AND an archer, or an even more supremely skilled archer, or whatever. And since general "fighting" feats make up a lot of the feat trees, this allows fighters to more fully explore their choices. Even with a feat/level, you simply aren't going to get many wizards taking power attack/cleave/great cleave - they'll end up taking more useful feats that are usually overlooked in terms of maximizing a character's capabilities in the party. While sometimes you'll get a roleplayer who decides their 6th level druid needs to take skill focus, most druids are taking natural spell. As far as making it harder for the DM to run - no one says you have to fill out every encounter to the [I]n[/I]th degree. If it's a main character, then sure, fill out every feat logically - otherwise, throw in a feat on the fly for a monster - say skill focus (climb) for a bear or lion. And ignore the rest - assume they took a "bad" feat. Someone has to take bad feats sometimes right? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification