Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9184853" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Exacrtly, that is why I am against feat prerequisites.  There are many, many worthwhile player facing options in 5E.I disagree here, more choices is never bad, if people want to always choose "powerful" choices they can do that, but most players purposely and knowingly make choices that are not optimal, and that is not a bad thing.Who decides what is inappropriate?  Let the player decide what is appropriate and not appropriate for their character.IME striving for balance for balance sake itself hurts the game.  I know that position is not universal, but there is no evidence at all that balance itself will make the game better for a majority of players, nor that you will have a better chance of having an enjoyable experience for most players.I get that it may be true for some players and at some tables, but I think that is a minority.So if balance makes a game better, and if we agree that non-casters are underpowered, does that mean the game would be better if they did not offer non-caster options at all so the options you could choose were more balanced?I don't get this argument.  IF you want to play a champion, play a champion, if you want to play an EK play an EK.  Both are there, both are viable and neither will relegate you mechanically to a specific or less substantial role.  IF that happens it is not because of class and subclass, but rather because of luck, table dynamics or other purposeful build choices.I personally don't like Champions, but others have had fun at tables I play with Champions.  I do like Thiefs and I have had fun playing a Thief, although I like Arcane Tricksters better.The "cost" to chooisng an EK is you can't play a Champion if you want to play a Champion and the consolation prize to playing a champion is playing what you want.</blockquote>

Verification