Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal: Alter Expertise Related House Rule
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="elecgraystone" data-source="post: 5110044" data-attributes="member: 74232"><p>it's not the +1 but what you gave up for it. Suddenly you're behind another player that doesn't focus on one kind of attack. Some, me included, would find that unfair. Why to you think they altered the draconic spellcaster feat to include damage? They wanted to encourage the theme and reward people for focusing their character. Anything else would have doomed the feat to uselessness. Pretty much the same as leaving the 5th level bonus and making it a feat bonus would do...</p><p> </p><p>Yes, yes it does. When you offer an option that doesn't have to give up something and an option the DOES have to give up something you're discouraging people from taking the option that gets less.</p><p> </p><p>Now you give something up to get the fire mage. A +1 for having all fire attacks and having the possibility that monsters have a resistance to it. Or you can play a wizard that gets a bonus to every spell. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure our which is better.</p><p> </p><p>Weapon focus also works with a staff so wizards get focus too. Which is why I said 'why take the more restrictive feat? Staff focus and a generic +1 damage feat works on every spell.</p><p> </p><p>LOL Who said more? Not I. They now have the option to get something by giving something. The get bonuses by focusing on one kind of attack.</p><p> </p><p>To a lesser extent this is true with non-iconic builds. Someone that ONLY uses axes or crossbows has more flavor that a ranger that'll pick up any old weapon that comes by. You give up options (feats based on weapon type, kinds of enchants ect) for the ability to get a bonus to hit. The generic bonus it just that. Boring and encourages everyone to NOT specialize.</p><p> </p><p>Oni has a good point too. Not knowing what WOTC has in store for the future, the closer we keep to the rules the better. We never know when we might see feats that require the expertise type feats as a requirement. Or a feat that gives an untyped bonus to a racial attack powers to hit (and then would stack with our feat bonus), making it stronger than intended.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="elecgraystone, post: 5110044, member: 74232"] it's not the +1 but what you gave up for it. Suddenly you're behind another player that doesn't focus on one kind of attack. Some, me included, would find that unfair. Why to you think they altered the draconic spellcaster feat to include damage? They wanted to encourage the theme and reward people for focusing their character. Anything else would have doomed the feat to uselessness. Pretty much the same as leaving the 5th level bonus and making it a feat bonus would do... Yes, yes it does. When you offer an option that doesn't have to give up something and an option the DOES have to give up something you're discouraging people from taking the option that gets less. Now you give something up to get the fire mage. A +1 for having all fire attacks and having the possibility that monsters have a resistance to it. Or you can play a wizard that gets a bonus to every spell. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure our which is better. Weapon focus also works with a staff so wizards get focus too. Which is why I said 'why take the more restrictive feat? Staff focus and a generic +1 damage feat works on every spell. LOL Who said more? Not I. They now have the option to get something by giving something. The get bonuses by focusing on one kind of attack. To a lesser extent this is true with non-iconic builds. Someone that ONLY uses axes or crossbows has more flavor that a ranger that'll pick up any old weapon that comes by. You give up options (feats based on weapon type, kinds of enchants ect) for the ability to get a bonus to hit. The generic bonus it just that. Boring and encourages everyone to NOT specialize. Oni has a good point too. Not knowing what WOTC has in store for the future, the closer we keep to the rules the better. We never know when we might see feats that require the expertise type feats as a requirement. Or a feat that gives an untyped bonus to a racial attack powers to hit (and then would stack with our feat bonus), making it stronger than intended. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal: Alter Expertise Related House Rule
Top