Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7205055" data-attributes="member: 996">--that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe greatswords and arrows of outrageous optimizationOr to take arms against a sea of optionsAnd by opposing end them. &nbsp;Heck, there should be fewer problems. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; They suffer with 'em.&nbsp; If anyone feels that strongly about it, they simply won't play a fighter in your campaign, right? :shrug:but, if you are concerned on that point, you /could/ let the fighter (only) take feats, with either of it's two 'bonus' ASIs, only.&nbsp; That makes feats into a de-facto class feature of the fighter.&nbsp;I run for AL tables with feats in use and a Variant Human with just the right feat can certainly make a definite difference at low level.&nbsp; Outside of AL I run without feats and have seen no particular issues directly attributable to the lack (for instance, in one case there was a particularly sucky fighter - it had nothing to do with lack of feats, but with an inability to roll higher than 12 on 4d6-drop-the-lowest).&nbsp;The game is designed to be theoretically balance-able around a 6-8 encounter day, beyond that, we're kinda on our own (and without that, feats aren't going to help).&nbsp;We do.&nbsp; I'm really thinking that removing slots entirely could create a pretty fair low-moderate magic game.&nbsp; Cantrips for combat, rituals out of combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7205055, member: 996"] --that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The greatswords and arrows of outrageous optimization Or to take arms against a sea of options And by opposing end them. Heck, there should be fewer problems. ;) They suffer with 'em. If anyone feels that strongly about it, they simply won't play a fighter in your campaign, right? :shrug: but, if you are concerned on that point, you /could/ let the fighter (only) take feats, with either of it's two 'bonus' ASIs, only. That makes feats into a de-facto class feature of the fighter. I run for AL tables with feats in use and a Variant Human with just the right feat can certainly make a definite difference at low level. Outside of AL I run without feats and have seen no particular issues directly attributable to the lack (for instance, in one case there was a particularly sucky fighter - it had nothing to do with lack of feats, but with an inability to roll higher than 12 on 4d6-drop-the-lowest). The game is designed to be theoretically balance-able around a 6-8 encounter day, beyond that, we're kinda on our own (and without that, feats aren't going to help). We do. I'm really thinking that removing slots entirely could create a pretty fair low-moderate magic game. Cantrips for combat, rituals out of combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification