Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7888714" data-attributes="member: 7006">If more people subscribed to your feelings (as I also do)... then we wouldn't have this issue.&nbsp; But quite frankly... anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows that story trumping mechanics is not what a good percentage of the people here believe in.This is why we have seen thread after thread after thread of &quot;What do we do about the Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter feats?&quot;&nbsp; Those feats supposedly unbalance the game, and every melee character (for the former) or ranged one (for the latter) is going to take them because you'd have to be an idiot not to.&nbsp; But then they turn around and say &quot;Well, ya know... I'd LIKE to see things like the Actor feat taken once in a while, because I'm just so bored with PCs that all have GWM and SS.&quot;And why do those players always take those feats?&nbsp; Because for their characters to be &quot;competent&quot; melee or ranged warriors, they feel like they HAVE to take those feats, if for no other reason than in the game world a person could do all that extra damage from the -5 / +10.&nbsp; Thus if their PC doesn't... then obviously their PC isn't truly great at their job.&nbsp; And the idea that their character isn't great at their job rankles them so much that yes, they will continue to take those feats if they are in the game.&nbsp; Which means the &quot;bored DM&quot; then has to make the conscious decision to NOT include those feats in their game, just so other options will get selected instead (because the players have &quot;no choice&quot;.)But of course... then you get DM versus player conflict when the DM is trying to nerf the players by not including all the mechanical options available in the game, and so the DM goes ahead and allows them to stay because goodness forbid they stand up to their players.&nbsp; Which means their ONLY remaining recourse is to DEMAND WotC give us Errata to &quot;fix&quot; these feats-- so that the feats can remain in the game but not be so good that players will not just choose them automatically.&nbsp; As though doing that will somehow then inspire those players to finally take the Actor feat.&nbsp; (Which of course is complete and utter bullcrap.)If there are players who actually care about story rather than mechanics... their problem is solved.&nbsp; Because if they want their PC to be &quot;the best swordsman in the land&quot;... they just CALL themselves that.&nbsp; And they can take a Personality Quirk where they believe themselves to be &quot;the best swordsman in the land&quot;.&nbsp; And they go on adventures where they can show off being &quot;the best swordsman in the land&quot;.&nbsp; And that can all happen without the player taking every single white-room &quot;best in class&quot; mechanical ability.&nbsp; Because guess what?&nbsp; Even if your &quot;best swordsman in the land&quot; did have every single &quot;best in class&quot; mechanical ability... that character is still going to roll a whole heap of '1s'.&nbsp; Your PC is going to occasionally look stupid as a swordsman, with or without having taken every &quot;best in class&quot; mechanical ability.&nbsp; They just are.&nbsp; So using the mechanics to exemplify it is actually a fool's errand-- just roleplay it and I suspect you'll see it play out in the narrative a whole lot easier and much more successfully because your DM will help you narratively fulfill it.&nbsp; Especially if you have stopped taking all those repetitive game mechanics over and over and over that they've grown bored with.The DM is happy because other game mechanics are used... and the player is happy because they can identify themselves as &quot;the best swordsman in the land&quot; and the story and campaign will facilitate it (without the dice needing to even get much involved.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7888714, member: 7006"] If more people subscribed to your feelings (as I also do)... then we wouldn't have this issue. But quite frankly... anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows that story trumping mechanics [I]is not[/I] what a good percentage of the people here believe in. This is why we have seen thread after thread after thread of "What do we do about the Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter feats?" Those feats supposedly unbalance the game, and every melee character (for the former) or ranged one (for the latter) is going to take them because you'd have to be an idiot not to. But then they turn around and say "Well, ya know... I'd LIKE to see things like the Actor feat taken once in a while, because I'm just so bored with PCs that all have GWM and SS." And why do those players always take those feats? Because for their characters to be "competent" melee or ranged warriors, they feel like they HAVE to take those feats, if for no other reason than in the game world a person [I]could[/I] do all that extra damage from the -5 / +10. Thus if their PC doesn't... then obviously their PC isn't truly [I]great[/I] at their job. And the idea that their character isn't great at their job rankles them so much that yes, they will continue to take those feats if they are in the game. Which means the "bored DM" then has to make the conscious decision to NOT include those feats in their game, just so other options will get selected instead (because the players have "no choice".) But of course... then you get DM versus player conflict when the DM is trying to nerf the players by not including all the mechanical options available in the game, and so the DM goes ahead and allows them to stay because goodness forbid they stand up to their players. Which means their ONLY remaining recourse is to DEMAND WotC give us Errata to "fix" these feats-- so that the feats can remain in the game but not be so good that players will not just choose them automatically. As though doing that will somehow then inspire those players to finally take the Actor feat. (Which of course is complete and utter bullcrap.) If there are players who actually care about story rather than mechanics... their problem is solved. Because if they want their PC to be "the best swordsman in the land"... they just CALL themselves that. And they can take a Personality Quirk where they believe themselves to be "the best swordsman in the land". And they go on adventures where they can [I]show off[/I] being "the best swordsman in the land". And that can all happen without the player taking every single white-room "best in class" mechanical ability. Because guess what? Even if your "best swordsman in the land" did have every single "best in class" mechanical ability... that character is still going to roll a whole heap of '1s'. Your PC is going to [I]occasionally look stupid[/I] as a swordsman, with or without having taken every "best in class" mechanical ability. They just are. So using the [I]mechanics[/I] to exemplify it is actually a fool's errand-- just [I]roleplay[/I] it and I suspect you'll see it play out in the narrative a whole lot easier and much more successfully because your DM will help you narratively fulfill it. Especially if you have stopped taking all those repetitive game mechanics over and over and over that they've grown bored with. The DM is happy because other game mechanics are used... and the player is happy because they can identify themselves as "the best swordsman in the land" and the story and campaign will facilitate it (without the dice needing to even get much involved.) [/QUOTE]

Verification