Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7843737" data-attributes="member: 996">It really is optional.&nbsp; I don't understand the need to deny that.&nbsp; Sure, if you loved 3e &amp; 4e with all their feats (or in spite of all their feats, but you got used to them), you might opt-into feats, as a DM.&nbsp; Conversely, if you skipped those editions, you might not care to deal with them and decline to do so.It's the DM's decision, and the fighter is presented as an equally-weighted choice of class (and it's sub-classes, likewise), regardless, so it should be an equal choice whether the DM opts into feats or not. If it weren't intended to be so, it should have been presented in the section with feats, as an equally-optional class that opened up with the inclusion of feats.(If I were cynical - yeah, the 'if' is rhetorical - I might speculate that the fighter's dependence on feats for viability is further evidence that it was intentionally designed as a &quot;Timmeh Card,&quot; a trap choice meant to appeal to players - be they, new or casual, or experienced/system-savvy but concept-driven, or indulging in real-roleplayer angst - based on the concept it represents, but deliver sub-par performance in actual play.&nbsp; In a game with Feats, at certain levels, when days run 6-8 encounters, the fighter may be balanced, without that optional rule, or at the levels that don't provide a net benefit via it, or on shorter days, it under-performs.&nbsp; (Now, (and I feel like I need a new parenthetical here, (it's silly I know (I just really don't get to program in LISP anymore, I guess (and I miss it)))) you could argue that feats being opted-in is the more typical mode of play (and you'd probably right (gah! I did it again)), but, by the same token you could argue that the typical mode of play is far fewer than 6-8 encounters per day!)Or having never used them, being TSR-era aficionados - a lot of whom were becoming active in the community again, at the time, with the rise of OSR gaming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7843737, member: 996"] It really is optional. I don't understand the need to deny that. Sure, if you loved 3e & 4e with all their feats (or in spite of all their feats, but you got used to them), you might opt-into feats, as a DM. Conversely, if you skipped those editions, you might not care to deal with them and decline to do so. It's the DM's decision, and the fighter is presented as an equally-weighted choice of class (and it's sub-classes, likewise), regardless, so it [I]should[/I] be an equal choice whether the DM opts into feats or not. If it weren't intended to be so, it should have been presented in the section with feats, as an equally-optional class that opened up with the inclusion of feats. (If I were cynical - yeah, the 'if' is rhetorical - I might speculate that the fighter's dependence on feats for viability is further evidence that it was intentionally designed as a "Timmeh Card," a trap choice meant to appeal to players - be they, new or casual, or experienced/system-savvy but concept-driven, or indulging in real-roleplayer angst - based on the concept it represents, but deliver sub-par performance in actual play. In a game with Feats, at certain levels, when days run 6-8 encounters, the fighter may be balanced, without that optional rule, or at the levels that don't provide a net benefit via it, or on shorter days, it under-performs. (Now, (and I feel like I need a new parenthetical here, (it's silly I know (I just really don't get to program in LISP anymore, I guess (and I miss it)))) you could argue that feats being opted-in [I]is[/I] the more typical mode of play (and you'd probably right (gah! I did it again)), but, by the same token you could argue that the typical mode of play is far fewer than 6-8 encounters per day!) Or having never used them, being TSR-era aficionados - a lot of whom were becoming active in the community again, at the time, with the rise of OSR gaming. [/QUOTE]

Verification