Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5501165" data-attributes="member: 3820">If you've been playing for a while, though, your character will have shifted from "Let me handle the hard check on this skill challenge, I'm trained" to "Ugh, I'm going to need to roll 13 or better; odds are we'd just get another failure and we can't afford one." You can actually track your devolution in ability if you don't take what can be the least interesting (by player) choices, just to keep up. It's sort of the feat tax problem again, only in this case you have two areas of feat taxes to consider before you can go for something that adds a new and interesting capability.In my experience it doesn't work quite like that. If I take, say, Paragon Defenses instead of Secret Stride once I hit paragon, I don't feel that my character has evolved and learned new tricks. What I do feel is the opportunity cost: I could have had a new trick (being able to be stealthy while moving quickly, which is very visual), but instead I paid a feat tax for a passive math modifier. I feel the same way about Skill Focus: I'd rather take Secret Stride than Skill Focus, because the first actually does feel like I'm learning a new trick while the second feels more like I'm accounting for a hike in math taxes.The problem I (and several of my players) have is that so many of these feats are boring. They can be exciting if you're wired for them, but if you're not? It's more fun to take Skill Training in a new skill than it is to get a +2 to a skill you already have, because then you have a whole new set of rolls open to you. Similarly, it's more fun to take Clever Tail (that tiefling feat that lets you use your tail for Thievery checks) than it is to take Expertise or Weapon Focus. Sure, mediocrity is the price to pay for wanting to play with more skills than the (sometimes stingy) class list allows for, or picking feats and paragon paths that offer new options instead of upgrading your current ones. I understand why that may be a necessary choice when we're talking D&D as a whole, with players that range from CharOp veterans to bright-eyed newbies. But it has its side effects, including (something I find problematic) a penchant for making players react more negatively to skill challenges. Making things more hard on groups who don't take skill-boost feats or focus only on the skills tied to their racial synergies results in those players trying fewer daring things. It's not my preferred play style.</blockquote>

Verification