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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8539533" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah and that's a misunderstanding, I guess that's the root of the problem.I like Feats. I have not had a 5E I did not actively want to get at least one Feat for, in the long run. Yet how many PCs do I have with Feats? 2. Out of about 9 PCs I've played in 5E. Why? Because those are the only two which got high enough level to make it "worth it". All the rest of my PCs are scattered from L2 to L10 (I'm disregarding PCs who are still L1, some of whom got played, some of whom didn't).So from the statistics perspective, you'd say I was "apathetic" about Feats.And that's completely wrong. Just straight bzzzzzt incorrect. The issue is that ASIs are too good to miss out on at lower levels. Especially as only one campaign had rolled stats out of those (no coincidence, one of the ones with Feats!).If I'd played a bunch of higher-level campaigns, things would look very different. My Druid who right now, L8 I believe, would have Warcaster, for example. If we got a Feat at level 1, virtually every PC I have would have some kind of magic/cantrip-related Feat.At a dead minimum any reasonable analysis should disregard all PCs under L4, except Vhumans and Theros/Ravenloft/Strixhaven PCs, because no PC under that level even CAN have a Feat (I mean, sure someone will note there are other exceptions, but off the top of my head). Yet they're included AFAIK. For simplicity's sake maybe just blanket disregard all PCs under L4. It's like asking how many 1-15 year olds drive cars on public roads by themselves or something lol. If the number if above zero, then questions need to be asked lol.</blockquote>

Verification