Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1841026" data-attributes="member: 23012">And I'm going to call BS on this!&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> They are simply a generalized version of class abilities.&nbsp; Mildly innovative, perhaps, but it is debateable whether the benefits feats provide in terms of &quot;tweaking&quot; characters and NPCs outweigh the costs in terms of additional mechanics (since each feat alters the &quot;normal rules&quot; in a certain way) and consequent complexity.My own group is split down the middle on this: half think feats are great, the other half think they introduce gratuitous complexity to the game.Interesting, that split mirrors our division over whether the &quot;mini-tactical wargame&quot; combat rules of 3.x are a good thing or not.Nope.&nbsp; The first ranger class (1976?) was a &quot;prestige class&quot;.&nbsp; And then there are the 1st ed. AD&amp;D bard and acrobat-thief classes.The Mentzer Masters D&amp;D rules -- later reproduced in the RC D&amp;D rules -- had &quot;prestige classes&quot;.&nbsp; At ninth level a cleric could become a druid.&nbsp; At ninth level, a fighter could become a paladin, a knight, or an avenger.Not innovative at all, really.I don't understand the big deal about &quot;one xp table&quot; for all classes.&nbsp; While it is necessary for 3.x D&amp;D, given the way that multiclassing works, it is hardly a huge boon in its own right.&nbsp; It is not as though looking at different exp charts was especially taxing or difficult. Yup.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 1841026, member: 23012"] And I'm going to call BS on this! ;) They are simply a generalized version of class abilities. Mildly innovative, perhaps, but it is debateable whether the benefits feats provide in terms of "tweaking" characters and NPCs outweigh the costs in terms of additional mechanics (since each feat alters the "normal rules" in a certain way) and consequent complexity. My own group is split down the middle on this: half think feats are great, the other half think they introduce gratuitous complexity to the game. Interesting, that split mirrors our division over whether the "mini-tactical wargame" combat rules of 3.x are a good thing or not. Nope. The first ranger class (1976?) was a "prestige class". And then there are the 1st ed. AD&D bard and acrobat-thief classes. The Mentzer Masters D&D rules -- later reproduced in the RC D&D rules -- had "prestige classes". At ninth level a cleric could become a druid. At ninth level, a fighter could become a paladin, a knight, or an avenger. Not innovative at all, really. I don't understand the big deal about "one xp table" for all classes. While it is necessary for 3.x D&D, given the way that multiclassing works, it is hardly a huge boon in its own right. It is not as though looking at different exp charts was especially taxing or difficult. Yup. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification