Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6876676" data-attributes="member: 12377">Yes. I hate this too. To me, choosing between a feat and an ability score is an un-fun choice, for all the reasons you mentioned. I hate the feeling that creating the character I want will make that character less mechanically effective. Even if it's only slightly less!Here's a paradox: I only want to pick feats that are an integral part of my character concept. But if it's an integral part of my character concept, I generally want to pick it early, not late. So waiting until level 12+ is not a fun option for me. Furthermore, the presence of a feat leads to a sort of "concept inflation" where other special abilities that reinforce a character concept somehow feel less. For example, in a game without feats, if you want to play greatsword weaponmaster (that's your schtick) you just play a fighter or paladin and pick up Greatweapon fighting style and have a good Strength and use a greatsword a lot. In a game with feats you should also take Heavy Weapon Mastery or else you can't really claim to be especially good at fighting with a greatsword. Heaven forbid they publish a sword-related feat because now you'll need that too. A document with a dozen sword-related feats would be a nightmare! I'd much rather pick one thing that says "greatsword weaponmaster" and be done, rather than having to build that up.I might like the feat system better if the feats themselves didn't mostly suck. Aside from a few OP feats, most are not worth taking. In theory, if feats were exactly balanced with ASIs, choosing between them wouldn't be so bad; it'd be a question of whether my character concept is better represented by special training and experience (feats) or raw talent (ASIs).</blockquote>

Verification