Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5896982" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, sure.  But, I'll note that earlier when someone encouraged a move toward a freeform magic system, you immediately noted several problems so I think you can see the problem in a larger sense.   It probably doesn't make a big deal one way or the other in a game largely based on core if you make Heighten Spell a feat or a class feature.   As we both agree, it's utility in core is marginal so where you put it is not important on those grounds.But that is in my opinion as it should be.  Strength really doesn't have much going for it in the RAW other than adding to damage.Sure.  But it basically comes down to this; do you notice how most people in this thread have been listing a lot of useful core feats that people often take - things like combat expertise, power attack, weapon finesse, far shot, spell focus, etc. - and are sayin that they shouldn't be a feat because you should get them for free.   This is fundamentally power creep.  The same thing applies to metamagic feats like Heighten Spell.  Sure, on one level, you could argue that magic ought to be more freeform and hense all spellcasters ought to get some, most, or all metamagic feats for free.  But, fundamentally that's just power creep.   Players always argue that they need more stuff.  But more stuff increases the games complexity and curves the power level up.  Maybe compressing the less powerful feats into single more powerful feats addresses an issue of power disparity between non-casters and casters (though I don't think doing this with entry feats is a good idea), but surely we can agree that casters don't inherently need more stuff?</blockquote>

Verification