Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8589136" data-attributes="member: 19857">I think I cross posted a clarifying edit while you were responding so I'll ask you if you don't mind to go back and read that edit rather than repeat it.&nbsp; I do understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand what I'm saying - the upshot is that a player who chooses to be a Knight at character creation gets an advantage over the player who chooses a Background that doesn't provide a feat. It's especially obvious if one character takes the feat to be a squire later so they can gain those mechanical benefits.&nbsp; Either that feat is as good a choice mechanically as any other feat - in which case the Knight player is getting a free feat or that feat is as you say a &quot;lesser feat&quot; - in which case the Folk Hero player loses a feat just to unlock the Knight of the Rose feat access that he wants. And he does this with no compensation for that loss of a feat choice because he didn't get the free feat. And it isn't like the Knight background is a lesser background in compensation for the feat - it gives all of the benefits of a background and a free feat.Unless the move is to let everyone get a free feat at 1st level (or trade their asi bonus for a feat) some background choices are just going to be better than others. And so the dude who was raised to be a knight will have an advantage over the folk hero who yearns to be a knight and finally achieves his dream. And while that may be &quot;realistic&quot; in a privilege of aristocracy sense, I think it sucks as a game mechanic</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 8589136, member: 19857"] I think I cross posted a clarifying edit while you were responding so I'll ask you if you don't mind to go back and read that edit rather than repeat it. I do understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand what I'm saying - the upshot is that a player who chooses to be a Knight at character creation gets an advantage over the player who chooses a Background that doesn't provide a feat. It's especially obvious if one character takes the feat to be a squire later so they can gain those mechanical benefits. Either that feat is as good a choice mechanically as any other feat - in which case the Knight player is getting a free feat or that feat is as you say a "lesser feat" - in which case the Folk Hero player loses a feat just to unlock the Knight of the Rose feat access that he wants. And he does this with no compensation for that loss of a feat choice because he didn't get the free feat. And it isn't like the Knight background is a lesser background in compensation for the feat - it gives all of the benefits of a background and a free feat. Unless the move is to let everyone get a free feat at 1st level (or trade their asi bonus for a feat) some background choices are just going to be better than others. And so the dude who was raised to be a knight will have an advantage over the folk hero who yearns to be a knight and finally achieves his dream. And while that may be "realistic" in a privilege of aristocracy sense, I think it sucks as a game mechanic [/QUOTE]

Verification