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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5723022" data-attributes="member: 13650">The idea of broadening the role of feats has two main pit falls for me.First, let's imagine that you develop enough levers (and instructions on how to use them) to perfectly balance every feat in the game. The choice between any two feats is now indifferent. What you haven't balanced, though, is that you still have a limited number of feat slots. So while any two feats are equal, the synergies between any two feats are not. For example, let's pretend that +1 atk with sword, +1 atk with bow, +2 dmg with sword, and +2 dmg with bow are all perfectly equal feats. The moment I take +1 atk with sword, the +2 dmg with sword feat is now more powerful than either bow feat because of my previous choices--I plan to use the sword for a lot of my actions, so sword feats are now more powerful.This issue is exacerbated by the fact that you get more feat slots. The more potential to acquire power in any one silo, the more important it becomes to efficiently coordinate those resources to consolidate power in that silo. This leads to people solely focusing on feats the push their one area of expertise and trying their hardest to avoid any actions that fall outside their narrow focus.Second, I actually think that fewer levers might lead to easier balancing because it forces the tradeoffs to be more poignant and defined. If you have dozens of little variances between feats, I suspect you'll quickly find choice-fatigue paralyzes most players. They'll resolve their paralysis by growing indifferent, which would be a shame because it looks like you have a great template set out to provide a lot of choice and customization.[My two cents]</blockquote>

Verification