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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7190474" data-attributes="member: 12731">Okay Sacrosanct.At first you came across as merely a Mike Mearls fanboy, ripping my opinion and trying to "prove" how one design estetic is better than another. To this, I say: so people like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams are objectively inferior designers than Mike Mearls? And based on what evidence?  But now you seem to display a modicum of respect as to the perspective that there can be several ways to design feats, none of them inherently better than another. In the spirit of that, I'll make a reply.First off, when I speak of different perspectives, I mean things like "broad feats are good" and "narrow feats are good". Your interpretation is uncharitable and combative, and I shan't respond to it.So why do you conclude my approach is more narrow than yours? That's preposterous. If the original feat is, let's say something silly:You gain extra damage with two-handed weapons. You also get to make a vorpal attack with greataxes.Why do you assume my ideal isYou deal extra damage and do vorpal attacks with greataxes.That only excludes everybody but greataxe owners.It is equally possible (and much better design, IMO) to sayYou deal extra damage and do vorpal attacks with two-handed weapons.Don't let your eagerness to oppose me in every thread you find cloud your judgement, Sacrosanct. As shown here, it gets embarrassing.And for everybody else:Yes, I quite dislike the feeling of the first version of this example feat. If I choose a greatsword I lose out on half the feat. Is there a compelling reason to have it that way? No.If you look at my own feat redesign, I hope to show you a better way. At present, the most updated thread is this one:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?557377-Feats-Redux-II" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?557377-Feats-Redux-II</a>You will see that Cleave is its own feat, and has been made as broad as possible. Now it allows all sorts of weapon attacks made in melee or at close range. It still signals it is meant for Strength builds, by the most commonly suggested replacement for the broken -5/+10 mechanism: a simple +1 Strength. So my Cleave can be said to be the immediate spiritual successor to the PHB GWM.You will also see that Great Weapon Master and Savage Attacker (my versions) have been made inclusive to all possible "heavy" attacks. No longer is the benefit restricted to heavy weapons only, or even two-handed weapons only, but "a melee weapon attack you made with two hands". There's a difference.The previous way simply feels wrong to me. There is no real reason for excluding you from wielding a versatile Longsword in two hands and still claim 100% of the benefits of the feat you have fought so hard for and finally chosen.Choosing a feat is a special occasion in 5th edition - you don't get very many, and you always must weigh the pros and cons against a straightforward ASI.Asking you to choose a feat for only half its benefits is asking you to make an unfun choice. (Also a by definition substandard choice).In no way do I consider my design to cater only to minmaxers and charop players. They will never settle for a Longsword in the first place, when the Greatsword does a teensy bit of extra damage. In fact, in my opinion, the people that stand the most to gain my a redesign like mine are the casual players and the ones prioritizing fashion over form! They don't even have to know they were spared a subpar decision when they can now choose, say, Cleave or Savage Attacker instead of the PHB Great Weapon Master.(Apologies for going off topic - now back to the new feats of the OP!)</blockquote>

Verification