Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guilt Puppy" data-source="post: 1211091" data-attributes="member: 6521">I'm thinking what he was trying to get at was that certain feats (like TWF) synergized with others (allowing to use your WFoc twice as often, et cetera), although he phrased it in a really odd way. In any case, I'd say that's false, because of the commutative property of multiplication. Remember that balance should always be geared toward best-case scenario: The most efficient application of a certain feat or element. To a character who attacks more than anything else, that +1 to hit is better, since they will see it applied slightly more often (ie, when attacking the wizard who casts spells in response).Of course, I'll have to contradict myself and say that I disagree with that particular example... While offense is better than defense (or rather, a feat where the player actively controls the frequency of its application is superior to one where the DM controls such), AC is better to have than BAB, simply by matter of scarcity... BAB is just easier to increase than AC is, so that +1 to hit, while of statistically equal value, is just more commonly available elsewhere. (This is why I almost always give a two-handed wielder a buckler these days <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )Again, I think it's a matter of frequency -- Precise Shot is not as good as a feat that gives you a +4 bonus when not firing into melee, for example. I think, however, he does underestimate the effectiveness of removing that kind of penalty -- it works as a sort of multiplier effect (if you're a good archer, then all of a sudden you're a good archer in twice as many situations; otherwise, you're just a better archer in one situation.)The rest I agree with Sean and you on, although I don't understand the point of #6... If it requires an action, or comes with a penalty when active, or whatever, then that falls under #8... If there's no penalty and it's a free action to activate, then there's a problem with the feat itself: It should have been designed to be (effectively) on non-stop. No reason to create the extra bookkeeping for the players.</blockquote>

Verification