Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Madeiner" data-source="post: 6777526" data-attributes="member: 61624">Hi there.This is a little rant about some mechanics of 5e, which has some cool features that can add to the depth of the game that rarely get used, mostly because of feats.I feel that some feats (and possibly other options) are mandatory in order to have a character that is in line with the expected power level of the game.Let me explain: the game has detailed (-ish) rules about cover/concealment and long distance fighting. Yet, if you are a ranged specialist, you basically HAVE to take sharpshooter (it's the best ranged feat you can get). That means you get to completely stop thinking about cover, movement to get around it, and distance to your target.If you are an archer player, you are likely interested in the tactical ramifications that cover can have. Yet, if you are to be effective, you basically need to ignore them all.Also happens with crossbows. What's the point of having the loading quality, which requires a different attack pattern (shoot/reload) and allow for some tactical thinking, if crossbows are completely underpowered unless you get a feat (that is, again, mandatory if you want to use crossbows effectively) that removes that tactical aspect?It's like they said "hey, lets make a weapon that is a bit different from the others, that makes you consider loading time. Oh, but of course it's useless unless you find a way to remove that loading time".I'm sure i can find other instances of this, even if i don't have anything on my mind right now.Heavy armors are a minor offender: have you ever seen someone with low strength using a str-requiring heavy armor? No, and it's not an option, because the penalty is so big nobody would think about cost/benefit.I think i read a thread in the past, where basically people said that when you get better at something, you get to think less about it, when you really are interested in the thing you are specialized in. Maybe it's the same issue (i can't find the thread).Feats should mechanically enrichen the thing you want to do, by allowing you to think more about it, and do more with it, not less.If i'm interested in archery, let me take a feat that allows me to choose different types of arrows for different situations, in order to be more a more effective archer while allowing me to think about more "archery".If i'm interested in hiding, let me take a feat that makes hiding more interesting, by giving more obstacles that i can surpass in order to be better than someone that does not have the feat. Don't just say i can hide without cover. That's boring.A Great weapon master should be given the option to use different weapons in different ways, so that he has a reason to think more about weapons!Am i alone here?EDIT: Here's a random feat that i thought up in 5 minutes, just to show a concept.Rifle expert:You are an expert at using rifles and guns, and can prepare special ammunition for them.At the end of each round, when you reload your gun, you may select a type of ammunition to load.Heavy shot: advantage to hit, range reduced to 20/40Pellets: your attacks are now a 15 foot cone in front of youTracing ammo: deals less damage, but negates disadvantage at long range. Also, you cannot benefit from concealment or hiding in any round in which you are shooting this ammo.Subsonic ammo: deals less damage/disadvantage to hit, but you can shoot without giving away your position.I believe this concept is way, way better than "ignore cover, add damage". (don't look at numbers/details)You get to do more and be better, but only if you start thinking about what ammo you want to use next round.Everyone else not interested in gunnery still use the normal rules. The one who takes the feat instead, is saying "hey, i like guns". The feats says "hey, here's some new tools so you can play with guns more"</blockquote>

Verification