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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6152853" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Why a bonus feat?  Why not "if you want these things, you take this feat, instead of a different feat that makes you more capable in combat/spellcasting./whatever?"  Does the fighter have insufficient feats?  If so, then let's give him more, by all means.  But not tell him "you are a Fighter, so you get this feat, at this level, which makes you a Leader of Men.  You don't get to choose to take it earlier, or later.  You can't choose something else.  All fighters must be Leaders of Men, and they must become such at this specific level".So what's the fix?  I'm pretty sure there are feat chains that can allow you extra AoO's, reach weapons to broaden your reach and further feats that will preclude the orcs from continuing to move after your AoO.  A new feat that allows you to, say, use your Intimidate skill to cause enemies to focus their attacks on you, rather than your allies, seems like a reasonable add, which will give you the result you want.  But there will, presumably, be a new desired result later on.  Should you get infinite feats?  The 1st level Wizard does not get a Fireball spell,  not even if he rolls really well trying to cast it, nor does he have a spell he can use in an anti-magic field.  Until, of course, one is added and he has the option of selecting it.  Maybe this should be included in Intimidate, or maybe we need a different skill to encompass this.But, having made this a feat or a skill, now the Wizard can take it too, so the fighter is not unique in having access to this ability.  Should he be?  If this is something anyone can do, why should the rules restrict it to fighters?  Isn't that why we ditched thieving skills that didn't allow other classes to climb walls or hide in shadows?</blockquote>

Verification