Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is The Paladin Weak?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="drnuncheon" data-source="post: 1024840" data-attributes="member: 96"><p>I disagree. Where I think the problem is is that far too many designers see the feat mechanic, and use that to add in things that should properly be new combat options.</p><p></p><p>For example: there should not be a feat that lets you make an attack while leaping down on someone - but I'll bet that if you looked hard enough, you'd be able to find one. On the other hand, FFG did it right in their <strong>Path of the Sword</strong> - they presented it as a combat option that anyone could attempt.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, I can't count how many feats I've seen for 'Shield Wall' - which is, at its core, a very basic concept. In my opinion, the only one who's done it right so far is Skip Williams, in his Cry Havoc! for Malhavoc press. He presents it as a combat maneuver for units, not a feat at all.</p><p></p><p>Basically, a lot of designers forget that many of these 'feats' are things that could be attempted by first level warriors, and that's where they go wrong. Introducing a mechanic as a feat closes it off to anyone who doesn't have the feat - leaving people saying 'but why <em>can't</em> my fighter do this?'</p><p></p><p>If they were introduced as combat maneuvers - with perhaps an 'Improved X' feat that lessened any associated penalties - then you wouldn't need to have 30 feats to represent the capabilities of a well-trained combatant. A feat would represent elite, in-depth training or extreme focus on a particular subject - just as it should.</p><p></p><p>Essentially: feats generally should not introduce new rules, they should alter existing rules. I think that this would answer 90% of your complaints.</p><p></p><p>The other 10% seem to be based on thinking of the feats as the baseline. Not every fighter should have weapon focus and weapon specialization - it should be unusual, someone who has dedicated themselves to that weapon, rather than standard issue for a soldier. Not every solder is going to have all of the Improved X feats (although they'll probably tend to pick them up as they go up in level.) By mentally adjusting the baseline - what you think of as 'normal' or 'average' , you can very easily bring the fighter into focus as an incredibly skilled elite combatant, even at 5th level.</p><p></p><p>J</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="drnuncheon, post: 1024840, member: 96"] I disagree. Where I think the problem is is that far too many designers see the feat mechanic, and use that to add in things that should properly be new combat options. For example: there should not be a feat that lets you make an attack while leaping down on someone - but I'll bet that if you looked hard enough, you'd be able to find one. On the other hand, FFG did it right in their [b]Path of the Sword[/b] - they presented it as a combat option that anyone could attempt. Similarly, I can't count how many feats I've seen for 'Shield Wall' - which is, at its core, a very basic concept. In my opinion, the only one who's done it right so far is Skip Williams, in his Cry Havoc! for Malhavoc press. He presents it as a combat maneuver for units, not a feat at all. Basically, a lot of designers forget that many of these 'feats' are things that could be attempted by first level warriors, and that's where they go wrong. Introducing a mechanic as a feat closes it off to anyone who doesn't have the feat - leaving people saying 'but why [i]can't[/i] my fighter do this?' If they were introduced as combat maneuvers - with perhaps an 'Improved X' feat that lessened any associated penalties - then you wouldn't need to have 30 feats to represent the capabilities of a well-trained combatant. A feat would represent elite, in-depth training or extreme focus on a particular subject - just as it should. Essentially: feats generally should not introduce new rules, they should alter existing rules. I think that this would answer 90% of your complaints. The other 10% seem to be based on thinking of the feats as the baseline. Not every fighter should have weapon focus and weapon specialization - it should be unusual, someone who has dedicated themselves to that weapon, rather than standard issue for a soldier. Not every solder is going to have all of the Improved X feats (although they'll probably tend to pick them up as they go up in level.) By mentally adjusting the baseline - what you think of as 'normal' or 'average' , you can very easily bring the fighter into focus as an incredibly skilled elite combatant, even at 5th level. J [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is The Paladin Weak?
Top