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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 355079" data-attributes="member: 3146">It's worth noting that customization is discussed in the DMG not the PH. It is intended IMHO to be a rule for DMs to change the style and flavor of classes in their world not for primarily for players to exercise their min-maxing abilities. If it were for that, it would be in the PH.As to the weapon focus: longbow/weapon focus: dagger question, the analogy doesn't fit since those would both be selected as feats by the player. This isn't talking about freely selecting a feat but rather exchanging a pair of (for the character) useless (feat-like) class features for an advantageous one. It's a lot more like a wizard asking to swap out dagger proficiency for longbow proficiency, a fighter who plans to wear light armor asking to swap out medium and heavy armor proficiencies for a bonus feat, or a two handed weapon fighting barbarian asking to exchange shield proficiency for weapon focus. In all of the exchanges I just listed, it's not a matter of whether the feats being exchanged are equal in power a priori but whether or not they are equal in power for the character in question. For the whirlwind attack fighter who plans on spending his entire career in a chain shirt, the heavy armor proficiency is useless. By exchanging it for even a feat as weak as toughness or skill focus, the power of the character is arbitrarily increased. (Which is what you said you didn't want to do). The same is true for your character. By giving up class features which you don't use (ambi/TWF) in exchange for an ability which you plan to make extensive use of (rapid shot), you are intentionally increasing the power of the character (after all, that's why it's useless abilities you're "sacrificing" and useful abilities you're asking for in exchange).There are plenty of people here who think it's a fair trade. I don't. It's not really very sensible for you to take offense at my analysis that this is a tradeup in power rather than a trade-down. You started the thread asking for analysis on whether rapid shot was more powerful than TWF. So you got an answer you didn't like. . . . If you only want to hear one answer, why ask the question.</blockquote>

Verification