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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5634822" data-attributes="member: 54877">What about this (and it might sound a tad familiar)? You've got a set of really good, simple, playtested, balanced combat feats. They got it by ruthlessly throwing out anything that was too complicated, hard to balance, etc. This is feat module A. Then you've got feat module B. This includes most of the stuff in A. It also includes a lot of borderline stuff that was mainly ok, but had some edge issues. Maybe there is also feat module C. It has a different slant on the stuff in A, with some other things added to fit that slant. You'd never use it with A. Then there is the complete book of feats, for feat module Z, including every feat available at the time it went to the printers. Tight balance goes out the window, since the whole point here is to let you pick whatever you want and handle balance issues yourself. Sure, they make some effort to get them in the ballpark, but no one even pretends it is perfect, or that there aren't some real stinkers in there. Now, I cheated just a bit there. For this to work, "feat" and "feat module" need to be tightly defined. You need a more rigorous plan for what feats can and can't do, what they cover, how they work, etc. I think this is part where Mearls is talking about keeping a close eye on the modules. You've built the integrated design to handles feats from feat modules--and that's that. They can't do anything else. If, for example, you also had "racial ability" modules that handle all such, then feats can't modify those things.  What happens inside the tight feat constraints in the various feat modules (whether some stack or replace others), is now allowed to go rather wild--as long as you've got a handful of options that stay grounded and simple.</blockquote>

Verification