Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BiggusGeekus@Work" data-source="post: 947000" data-attributes="member: 7828">I don't like the way feats have replaced skills to an extent.&nbsp; I can see why it happened.&nbsp;&nbsp; DMs don't like to make arbitrary judgements (like you so often have to do with skill checks) and feats are a great way to work around that.EXAMPLE: A player wants to imitate Legolas' shield-surfing from The Two Towers.&nbsp; The DM says, &quot;OK that's a Balance check DC 25.&quot;&nbsp; Then the player complains that it was DC 22 last week and the game slows down for a minute while they argue about it.&nbsp; A shield-surfing feat takes care of this automatically and there's no debate.But I think this is sloppy.&nbsp; I'd rather have an extra page or two in various books on what skills can do and what modifies the DCs, rather than to just brush the problem off by creating a feat.Another issue is balance.&nbsp; Feats aren't balanced from one setting to another and they shouldn't be.&nbsp; I deliberately overpower my feats because players can only take them at first level and they help define nationality (besides, the NPCs have 'em too, so it isn't like the fights are easier).&nbsp; That's great, but what happens when someone takes one of my feats and uses it in Forgotten Realms&nbsp; or Midnight?&nbsp; Wham!&nbsp; Instant broken feat.&nbsp; I don't think this is an aspect of feats that has truly &quot;clicked&quot; in the D&amp;D community, a feat can be totally fine in one setting, but useless or overpowered in another.There are some areas where I think feats shine.&nbsp; I think they're great for fleshing out martial arts styles (something D&amp;D otherwise does poorly) and to personalize spellcasting (a la Malhavoc).&nbsp;&nbsp; But I don't like the reflexive &quot;create a feat for it&quot; sentiment that seems to exist.... just my two cents.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BiggusGeekus@Work, post: 947000, member: 7828"] I don't like the way feats have replaced skills to an extent. I can see why it happened. DMs don't like to make arbitrary judgements (like you so often have to do with skill checks) and feats are a great way to work around that. EXAMPLE: A player wants to imitate Legolas' shield-surfing from [i]The Two Towers[/i]. The DM says, "OK that's a Balance check DC 25." Then the player complains that it was DC 22 last week and the game slows down for a minute while they argue about it. A shield-surfing feat takes care of this automatically and there's no debate. But I think this is sloppy. I'd rather have an extra page or two in various books on what skills can do and what modifies the DCs, rather than to just brush the problem off by creating a feat. Another issue is balance. Feats aren't balanced from one setting to another and they shouldn't be. I deliberately overpower my feats because players can only take them at first level and they help define nationality (besides, the NPCs have 'em too, so it isn't like the fights are easier). That's great, but what happens when someone takes one of my feats and uses it in Forgotten Realms or Midnight? Wham! Instant broken feat. I don't think this is an aspect of feats that has truly "clicked" in the D&D community, a feat can be totally fine in one setting, but useless or overpowered in another. There are some areas where I think feats shine. I think they're great for fleshing out martial arts styles (something D&D otherwise does poorly) and to personalize spellcasting (a la Malhavoc). But I don't like the reflexive "create a feat for it" sentiment that seems to exist. ... just my two cents. [/QUOTE]

Verification