Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7214448">Uhoh, you've triggered a debate on if feats are assumed or considered optional by RAW!!!&nbsp; Better run for the hills everyone!**But more seriously, I don't get the point of&nbsp; @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6904757" target="_blank">WayOfTheFourElements</a>s comment.&nbsp; Why bring up playing without feats in a threat that is essentially about homebrew, if you're bringing in your home-made &quot;optional material&quot; it seems rather petty to draw a distinction between RAW &quot;optional material&quot;.Oh boy look out, we can't role play and roll play at the same time.&nbsp; I guess we better throw this whole &quot;role playing game&quot; thing out the window!Seriously?&nbsp; Why can't we as a community move past this sort of garbage?&nbsp; Like somehow being mechanically optimal is dichotomous to role-playing.&nbsp; My character isn't interesting because his mechanical elements match, or even because they don't match!&nbsp; My character is interesting because of the the way I fluff those elements.&nbsp; Being REALLY GOOD at one thing is neither more nor less interesting than being sorta good at a lot of things or kinda good at one thing or REALLY bad at everything.&nbsp; &quot;Best&quot; is also pretty subjective depending on what you want to accomplish.&nbsp; An archer is obviously not going to pick the best feat for a caster.&nbsp; A caster is not going to pick the best feat for a heavy-armor sword &amp; board guy.I mean, yeah I took the Charlatan background for my female elf rogue, it's mechanically optimal for all the sneaky, deceptive rogue stuff I wanna do, but it also perfectly fits her background as she pretends to be the &quot;secret mistress&quot; of recently dead wealthy people in order to steal their money.&nbsp; Forging documents and tricking local courts into giving her money, disgracing the names of nobles the party is having a problem with and so forth.&nbsp; That's the kind of stuff that makes an interesting character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 7214448"] Uhoh, you've triggered a debate on if feats are assumed or considered optional by RAW!!! Better run for the hills everyone! ** But more seriously, I don't get the point of @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6904757"]WayOfTheFourElements[/URL][/U][/B][/I]s comment. Why bring up playing without feats in a threat that is essentially about homebrew, if you're bringing in your home-made "optional material" it seems rather petty to draw a distinction between RAW "optional material". Oh boy look out, we can't role play and roll play at the same time. I guess we better throw this whole "role playing [B]game[/B]" thing out the window! Seriously? Why can't we as a community move past this sort of garbage? Like somehow being mechanically optimal is dichotomous to role-playing. My character isn't interesting because his mechanical elements match, or even because they don't match! My character is interesting because of the the way I fluff those elements. Being REALLY GOOD at one thing is neither more nor less interesting than being sorta good at a lot of things or kinda good at one thing or REALLY bad at everything. "Best" is also pretty subjective depending on what you want to accomplish. An archer is obviously not going to pick the best feat for a caster. A caster is not going to pick the best feat for a heavy-armor sword & board guy. I mean, yeah I took the Charlatan background for my female elf rogue, it's mechanically optimal for all the sneaky, deceptive rogue stuff I wanna do, but it also perfectly fits her background as she pretends to be the "secret mistress" of recently dead wealthy people in order to steal their money. Forging documents and tricking local courts into giving her money, disgracing the names of nobles the party is having a problem with and so forth. That's the kind of stuff that makes an interesting character. [/QUOTE]

Verification