Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7736628" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>All that makes sense. Putting thought into stuff and coming to a reasoned conclusion is good. It's the sight-unseen blanket ban that is bad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, the desired aesthetic I'm going for is I want to make my PC my way, and let other people make their PCs their way. If I think that the Actor feat or the Defensive Duellist feat sums up my PC very well, and lets the game action closely approximate the way I envision my PC working, because the feat mechanics map well to the fluff, why would <em>another</em> player care whether or not I choose the Actor feat instead of +2 Cha? And if they did, why should what <em>they</em> want trump what <em>I</em> want when it comes to <em>my</em> PC? Would they be okay with me telling them that they cannot choose <em>fireball</em> and they have to take <em>haste?</em></p><p></p><p>Second, this doesn't interfere with your campaign idea of associating certain feats with membership in certain organisations; you don't need to blanket ban all feats to get the desired effect, you just need to identify <em>some</em> feats (desirable ones!) and limit <em>only those</em> feats, while leaving the broad mass of feats available.</p><p></p><p>This will still leave membership in organisations desirable, while still allowing feats generally. It will also make players more likely to choose ASIs rather than feats until they gain membership of the organisation that gets them the feat they want. It's no extra work for the DM because the DM has already decided which feats go with which organisation anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 7736628, member: 6799649"] All that makes sense. Putting thought into stuff and coming to a reasoned conclusion is good. It's the sight-unseen blanket ban that is bad. First, the desired aesthetic I'm going for is I want to make my PC my way, and let other people make their PCs their way. If I think that the Actor feat or the Defensive Duellist feat sums up my PC very well, and lets the game action closely approximate the way I envision my PC working, because the feat mechanics map well to the fluff, why would [i]another[/i] player care whether or not I choose the Actor feat instead of +2 Cha? And if they did, why should what [i]they[/i] want trump what [i]I[/i] want when it comes to [i]my[/i] PC? Would they be okay with me telling them that they cannot choose [i]fireball[/i] and they have to take [i]haste?[/i] Second, this doesn't interfere with your campaign idea of associating certain feats with membership in certain organisations; you don't need to blanket ban all feats to get the desired effect, you just need to identify [i]some[/i] feats (desirable ones!) and limit [i]only those[/i] feats, while leaving the broad mass of feats available. This will still leave membership in organisations desirable, while still allowing feats generally. It will also make players more likely to choose ASIs rather than feats until they gain membership of the organisation that gets them the feat they want. It's no extra work for the DM because the DM has already decided which feats go with which organisation anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
Top