Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6631684" data-attributes="member: 12731">Sigh. Seems you really need this discussion to come full circle.The issue isn't casters or skillmonkeys taking GWM or SS. That's a preposterous definition of &quot;broken&quot; or &quot;overpowered&quot;.The issue is that there is two kinds of fightery characters. The ones that take either of these, and the ones that don't. It would be nice if the second group could hold a candle to the first, but they don't. The issue is that if you plan to play a character using weapons to hurt foes, you need either of these two feats. They're that good. If you don't take them, you're supposed to lose out on damage somewhat, but you gain other neat stuff instead. But it is very hard to turn away from that much extra damage. After all, killing your foes is the best way to not get hurt yourself. Specializing in something other than killing your foes better give very good benefits. And since the extra damage from these feats can easily add 50% damage, those other choices start looking very stupid in comparison. The extra damage from these feats is so significant, in fact, it pays off to build your strategy around enabling them as much as possible. In short: everybody that does not have these feats try their hardest to grant those who do advantage on their attacks.This is when you should realize something's wrong. Because this isn't a fun strategy for everybody.The ideal solution is not to remove them from play. That would reduce choice, and what we want is ADD choice. We want to tone them down a notch, so &quot;not taking them&quot; becomes a viable character building strategy, thereby ADDING choice to the game.---Now then, emd45, what do you think about the +5/-5 suggestion we were talking about?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6631684, member: 12731"] Sigh. Seems you really need this discussion to come full circle. The issue isn't casters or skillmonkeys taking GWM or SS. That's a preposterous definition of "broken" or "overpowered". The issue is that there is two kinds of fightery characters. The ones that take either of these, and the ones that don't. It would be nice if the second group could hold a candle to the first, but they don't. The issue is that if you plan to play a character using weapons to hurt foes, you need either of these two feats. They're that good. If you don't take them, you're supposed to lose out on damage somewhat, but you gain other neat stuff instead. But it is very hard to turn away from that much extra damage. After all, killing your foes is the best way to not get hurt yourself. Specializing in something other than killing your foes better give very good benefits. And since the extra damage from these feats can easily add 50% damage, those other choices start looking very stupid in comparison. The extra damage from these feats is so significant, in fact, it pays off to build your strategy around enabling them as much as possible. In short: everybody that does not have these feats try their hardest to grant those who do advantage on their attacks. [I]This is when you should realize something's wrong.[/I] Because this isn't a fun strategy for everybody. The ideal solution is not to remove them from play. That would reduce choice, and what we want is ADD choice. We want to tone them down a notch, so "not taking them" becomes a viable character building strategy, thereby ADDING choice to the game. --- Now then, emd45, what do you think about the +5/-5 suggestion we were talking about? [/QUOTE]

Verification