Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7713866" data-attributes="member: 20323">There's nothing wrong with your cleric with some superiority dice...unless there's a fighter in the party with the battle master subclass.There's nothing wrong with your druid with expertise in stealth &amp; athletics...unless there's a rogue in the party with Expertise in one or both of those skills.It becomes a question of &quot;concept death by inches.&quot; How far into a fighter, or a rogue, or whatever, can you cut before it starts to undermine that class' identity at the table – that is, before players of said fighter or rogue start to notice, hey, I don't feel like my character has that unique cool anymore.I think we should be careful about giving other classes features from martially oriented classes in particular, since martial classes don't have a pool of spells to draw from as part of their definition.On the other hand, something like the Magical Adept feat works just fine because so many classes have access to spells – in general, they're not a uniquely identifying feature (with some exceptions).Every group is going to have different levels of tolerance with this. For example, you and your group sounds like you like the 3e style feats-galore approach allowing you to make exactly the character you want, adopting features from across multiple classes. That's fine, but IF that's the direction Wizards wants to go with such feats, it would be wise to acknowledge that not every group wants that, and to somehow silo those class-feature-borrowing feats separate from other feats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7713866, member: 20323"] There's nothing wrong with your cleric with some superiority dice...unless there's a fighter in the party with the battle master subclass. There's nothing wrong with your druid with expertise in stealth & athletics...unless there's a rogue in the party with Expertise in one or both of those skills. It becomes a question of "concept death by inches." How far into a fighter, or a rogue, or whatever, can you cut before it starts to undermine that class' identity at the table – that is, before players of said fighter or rogue start to notice, hey, I don't feel like my character has that unique cool anymore. I think we should be careful about giving other classes features from martially oriented classes in particular, since martial classes don't have a pool of spells to draw from as part of their definition. On the other hand, something like the Magical Adept feat works just fine because so many classes have access to spells – in general, they're not a uniquely identifying feature (with some exceptions). Every group is going to have different levels of tolerance with this. For example, you and your group sounds like you like the 3e style feats-galore approach allowing you to make exactly the character you want, adopting features from across multiple classes. That's fine, but IF that's the direction Wizards wants to go with such feats, it would be wise to acknowledge that not every group wants that, and to somehow silo those class-feature-borrowing feats separate from other feats. [/QUOTE]

Verification