Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="C4" data-source="post: 5581413" data-attributes="member: 93857">First, I don't complain about your own horrendous grammar and formatting, but I'd thank you to not inflict it upon my posts when you quote me.When WotC prints something as a feat, most DMs take it as an official stamp of approval. Not as a "You may want to disallow this feat, or you may want to give it away for free" label, but as a "This is supposed to be a feat, and if you house rule it otherwise you're playing with fire" stamp. (See your own comments for confirmation.)If WotC had included some kind of "optional per campaign by DM discretion" note along with feat taxes, you'd have an argument.So yes, there are better ways to handle problems than with feat taxes. If WotC were to errata them away and replace them with a real fix, yes, you might have to tweak your encounters for the next week. Worst case scenario, you have to raise your monster levels by +1 per tier. Best case scenario, you don't have to tweak anything if you're using a published mod because it assumes everyone pays their taxes anyway.I don't feel emotionally agitated myself, but if the discussion is making you uncomfortable, you're free to bow out.I haven't told anyone how to play their game, but I have answered Mercurius' OP -- which was specifically aimed at the feat tax camp. (Assuming his question is genuine, and not bait.) I've also pointed out how feat taxes have a negative impact on the game, and how easy it is to fix them.I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of your argument. You want me to have the choice of being competent with a sword, but you don't want me to have the same choice with regards to class skills, hit points, powers, or anything else that WotC hasn't labeled as a 'feat.'So to recap your own statements:1. Feat taxes are alright because they give players the choice of whether to be competent or not. Some players don't want to be competent, and some PCs don't need to be competent in certain areas.2. But it's not alright to let players exchange abilities that by your own assertions are "fair and balanced" as feats to get feat slots for things that they do want or need.Your arguments are rather inconsistent. In fact, the only consistent part of your arguments is that they take RAW at face value -- despite all evidence and professional opinions to the contrary -- and then rationalize or excuse RAW's few flaws.This is the most insightful thing you've said. You're happy with RAW, despite its flaws...because it's RAW. And you'd be happy if RAW included a real math fix, because it'd be RAW. And hey, that's great for you. Now, if I might make a suggestion:Just be honest next time. "I'm here and I'm a RAW-lover" is a lot less time consuming and personal than ten pages of debate with us.Thank you, I am. And if I don't say so myself, my <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/290015-c4-best-edition-never-published.html" target="_blank">Complete 4th Edition</a> takes WotC's excellent game and cleans up the few remaining glitches.I share your sentiments on this. Well, your last sentiment at least. Personally though, I don't think whiny maggots are a good reason to not make the game a better game. And the devs must agree, at least in part, because the books and the errata keep coming. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah, that could work, though masterwork stuff isn't my favored solution. (Because once in a while, PCs get caught without their gear, and I don't like taking even more bonuses away from them in those situations.) In fact, I've done away with masterwork armor in my own games. But masterwork weapons/implements are a commonly espoused idea.</blockquote>

Verification