Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5049869" data-attributes="member: 61155">Why do feats exist to represent being particularly skilled, or coming from a certain background, or having certain styles of training, or any other elements connected to character background? To enhance choices already made by the player. I don't need Heavy Blade Opportunity to claim my character is a master swordsman, but taking it reinforces the concept I already have in mind.  A character can play a pacifistic character without needing a feat to back it up - but taking the feat reinforces the concept and in some ways rewards them for that style of play. But it isn't required for it, and you can take people captive all day long without needing any specific feat that demands you do so.  Not necessarily the most powerful in the game, but the benefit it offered is clearly among the most potent you can find in terms of raw numbers - which is why it has the downside to compensate for it.  I'm not sure what the 'odd style of gameplay' you refer to is, however. If you are referring to playing a character who uses attacks that hinder foes without dealing damage, that is something that quite a few people were rather vocally demanding before Divine Power came out, and that Divine Power finally made truly viable. This feat is obviously intended to work with that.  Obvious if someone took the feat without wanting to be in that situation, it would be jarring - but I have to imagine that's unlikely to happen. So I don't see what situation it could cause that is 'jarring' and 'unfun'? It never forces anyone to avoid dealing damage - the player does that, by choosing the feat. It doesn't enforce their behavior on anyone else in the party. What 'unfun' gameplay do you see it encouraging?  That's certainly your call to make, and if a feat (or other game element) does present irreconcilable differences with the DMs vision of their game, removing it is one way around it.  I'm just... still confused as to what it is about it that lessens your enjoyment of the game. Is it that you would prefer a different feat for pacifistic clerics? I can certainly understand that desire, but not sure how the mere presence of a feat that functions differently would inspire such frustration - especially if it will be your player dealing with it, rather than yourself. Do you feel the bonus it will give your player is too strong? I could understand that reasoning, perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be what you are getting at. Opposite that, is it that the feat offends you by demanding so much for its benefit? Do you feel entitled to the power it gives you and upset at having to put up with a penalty in return for that power? Again, I could see the logic there, but it doesn't seem to fit the arguments you are making nor the concerns you have.  Is it that you feel opposed to a player refusing to damage bloodied enemies? Getting rid of the feat won't stop players from still using non-damaging powers if that fits their concept. Are you planning to remove the option entirely, and forbid PCs from using non-damaging powers? I'm still not sure why you would be opposed to that, or feel that taking away that choice for your players would substantially improve your game.  Or is it simply the potential minion issue that you find unacceptable? I can see, from your original description, how that would potentially lead to odd situations that break suspension of disbelief. But... I've always mentioned several incredibly easy ways to fix that. Surely any of those would seem a better option than just forbidding the feat to a player who wants to take it, yes? Since doing so would both remove the problem you have with it while making the player happy, after all.  I can understand not having access to that option if you are the player, and thus avoiding the feat if playing in a game where you feel it will result in weird situations for your pacifistic character. But given how easy it is to remove that possibility as a DM, what is it that makes you feel so strongly that the only answer is to forbid the feat, now and forever, for any player who might want to take it?</blockquote>

Verification