Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 7841406" data-attributes="member: 7015698">Spell casters that can prep spells are inherently more flexible though. Their bad choice are only a problem for a single day. Picking a feat that turns out useless is far more impactful if your DM isn't lenient.I mean, ideally no one should be left twiddling their thumbs during any of the pillars of plays, that'd be ideal, and every class should have something that is uniquely theirs to contribute in all three pillars, regardless of how effective it might be. That something should represent a clear player-sided choice beyond &quot;I want to roll for that skill&quot;... But I guess that's too much to ask of the traditional DnD paradigm.Personally, I view spending your first feat on a non-combat option as downright 'throwing good money over bad': You're investing a rare ressource into shoring up a deficiency of your base class so you can be at a similar baseline as other classes (as an aside I find the combat feats to be generally more engaging mechanically than their, rarer, non-combat equivalent) instead of making your strengths better.And if you decide to invest into combat instead, you can't be sure you'll get the chance in your current campaign to pick a non-combat feat because you never know when it could end.To say nothing of what happens if everybody goes with a non-combat feat, movie the 'baseline' back a step...I totally believe that some players are perfectly content with the Fighter as it is. I do, however, believe there is plenty of room to improve in a way that wouldn't, in any way, diminish the satisfaction of players who are already satisfied, and that people like me have legitimate complaints. Every time we want to talk about improving the fighter we have to waste our time defending our grievances as legitimate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Undrave, post: 7841406, member: 7015698"] Spell casters that can prep spells are inherently more flexible though. Their bad choice are only a problem for a single day. Picking a feat that turns out useless is far more impactful if your DM isn't lenient. I mean, ideally no one should be left twiddling their thumbs during any of the pillars of plays, that'd be ideal, and every class should have something that is uniquely theirs to contribute in all three pillars, regardless of how effective it might be. That something should represent a clear player-sided choice beyond "I want to roll for that skill"... But I guess that's too much to ask of the traditional DnD paradigm. Personally, I view spending your first feat on a non-combat option as downright 'throwing good money over bad': You're investing a rare ressource into shoring up a deficiency of your base class so you can be at a similar baseline as other classes (as an aside I find the combat feats to be generally more engaging mechanically than their, rarer, non-combat equivalent) instead of making your strengths better. And if you decide to invest into combat instead, you can't be sure you'll get the chance in your current campaign to pick a non-combat feat because you never know when it could end. To say nothing of what happens if everybody goes with a non-combat feat, movie the 'baseline' back a step... I totally believe that some players are perfectly content with the Fighter as it is. I do, however, believe there is plenty of room to improve in a way that wouldn't, in any way, diminish the satisfaction of players who are already satisfied, and that people like me have legitimate complaints. Every time we want to talk about improving the fighter we have to waste our time defending our grievances as legitimate. [/QUOTE]

Verification