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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silam" data-source="post: 9889372" data-attributes="member: 7055898">That might be true… but if it is, then I don’t see how any addition to the game can ever attain this ideal that it "applies roughly equally to every class that can take them".A single feat, a new full class with new subclasses, a new subclass of an existing class, or even a "prestige class" (i.e., a class with prereqs and less than 20 levels)… any and all of those mechanics could conceivably apply not equally to every class that can take them.If the new option is Charisma-based, it’ll gel better with Charisma SAD classes and less well if it makes you MAD. And even beyond simple stat-related interaction there could be many other so-called synergies and anti-synergies.The only way to not risk unbalancing the game any further is to reject every future splatbook and stick to PHB-only games. And that is totally fine for those who want to play that way.But if we are going to introduce more complexity and accept the associated risk of power creep and imbalance, then I don’t see how we can lay that risk at the feet of feats nor feat paths anymore than any other mechanic…Ok… I guess there is some aesthetic bottleneck that makes this feat mechanic unappealing somehow. Just like I personally have some aesthetic issues with the restrictions, complexities and side-effects of the subclass mechanics. But at this point if aesthetics are the only real issues left, we’re not discussing game balance anymore. I guess two differently implemented and roughly balanced games can have different aesthetics and therefore appeal to different people. If that is where we have arrived in the discussion, that is fine, but it means there may not exist a game design that appeals equally to both of us (which is to be expected and not a big deal; not every game is for everyone…).I guess I don’t see the distinction you’re drawing? We discussed many examples. A feat for liches, for arcane archers, for duelists, for mage slayers, for lucky people… why are some of these concepts acceptable and others not? What’s the magic sauce that distinguishes them?But then, the distinction I’m fishing for above may not matter after all, since you state here that either way it’s bad.You mention "unnecessary feat loat"… but can we have a conversation about what bloat even means?Maybe an example could help… look at gishes: the Bladesinger Wizard and the Valor Bard are very similar subclasses, since their level 6 and 14 abilities are the same. I’m actually a bit peeved that the Bladesinger whose flavor I love has such little differentiation from a Bard, whose flavor I abhor, but that’s besides the point. Subclasses should in theory give us great differentiation but as evidenced in the BS/VB conparison, they do not. These subclasses feel the same and so let’s roll with that fact.By being Wizard/Bard subclasses, they can’t apply to any other full spellcasting classes like Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids, nor can they be combined with other Wizard/Bard subclasses. Is the solution to have a Sorcerer gish subclass with the same abilities as the BS/VB get at levels 6 and 14, but slightly re-skinned abilities for the 3rd and other levels? And then more equivalent subclasses for Clerics and Druids?Why can’t I pay some number of feats with high enough prereqs to have a non-stackable "Extra Attack where one of the attack can be substituted for a Cantrip"? Or even just the latter part of it (i.e., it has Extra Attack and the ability to cast 3rd level spells as prereqs, and the only thing it gives is the ability to sub one attack for a Cantrip)? If that’s still too strong, make it a full feat and not a half-feat?The point is, I believe there must be a sufficiently restrictive way to design this feature into a feat that respects game balance, and that little feat adds much less bloat to the game than three whole new subclasses…<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤝" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f91d.png" title="Handshake    :handshake:" data-shortname=":handshake:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification