NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7714636" data-attributes="member: 22779">Does Sharpshooter prevent your players from shooting into combat when allies are in the way?  It certainly doesn't do that in my game.Does the Actor feat mean that your players never try to disguise themselves?Do you players never try to jump or climb unless they have the Athletics feat?Do they only attempt to grapple if they have the Grappler feat?Does the existence of Martial Adept mean that no one every plays Battlemasters?Does the Mobile feat (which negates difficult terrain) mean that no one tries acrobatics to move through difficult terrain?Does the Sentinel Feat mean that no one ever readies an action to stop something from moving?Sorry, I'm belaboring the point here, but, this stuff already exists in the game.  We ALREADY have skill feats, in a slightly different form.  And, they haven't caused any problems.  If these skill feats were an issue, why haven't we been hearing how these other feats are a problem?  These aren't new feats.  They are simply extrapolations of existing feats.  New twists on a well established idea.I really don't see how any of these are actually going to cause an issue at the table.  Not when you already have all of these.  Battlemasters and Open Hand Monks both get a trip attack.  Does that mean no one at your table ever tries to trip anything?  If codifying maneuvers was a problem, then why aren't all these other facets of the game a problem?  There are a boat load of codified effects, from spells to purely martial actions, that different classes get.  Why are these any different?</blockquote>

Verification