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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7736478" data-attributes="member: 6799649">My point was that the stated reason that some players don't want feats to be allowed in their game (for anyone not just those players who'd rather have the ASI) is because the very existence of feats means that those who didn't choose that feat are not allowed to do the things that feat lets you do, while in games without feats any PC can try anything.This reasoning is flawed on the grounds that if the rules for certain things exist and only the PCs who choose that option are allowed to try those things, therefore those rules are so restricting that players object to those rules existing, then this same objection also applies to character classes! Why don't they use the same logic to vote classes out of their game?So they wouldn't have a game left at all? Well, they don't seem to mind a game where the DM decides on the fly whether or not any PC can try anything (because the lack of feats which let you do specific things 'frees' the DM to let anyone try anything), so why would they object to a game without classes, where the DM decides on the fly whether your PC can or cannot try to cast a spell or backstab an enemy or, well, anything which is a class ability in the rules?It's that flawed logic that my post was about.On the point about "no feature in the game requires feats": what about the feature where you can give yourself a penalty to attack with a heavy melee weapon and get a +10 damage bonus? Oh, yes, it requires a feat! The Heavy Weapon Mastery feat to be precise. I'm not being facetious; it may seem self-fulfilling that you require a feat to use that feat, but it is equally self-fulfilling that you require a class feature in order to use that class feature!Feats and classes 'restrict' the DM's ability to run a free-form game in exactly the same way, so the fact that feats restrict the DM's ability to do this sometimes, while ignoring the fact that classes do exactly the same thing, renders that objection nonsensical. Other objections exist, but I deal with them individually.</blockquote>

Verification