Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryMojo" data-source="post: 4973665" data-attributes="member: 83096">This argument has been going on since PHB2 was being previewed, and I've had the "priveledge" of seeing the debate, and in-game application of both arguments. I think this might actually be a question of optimization mentality vs. casual mentality. If you're a player that wants to optimize and min-max, you're going to take your expertise feat, and likely your defense feats because when it gets right down to it, they really help out. Meanwhile, if you're of a more casual bent, you're going to aim for the cool and fun feats instead, and just lack a bit in the to-hit and defense department. There's a game out there for both, the optimized party will likely be facing a smaller number of higher level monsters, while the casual players will more likely be facing a larger number of lower level monsters. Assuming a DM that tailors encounters to his party and not the other way around. Therefore, I propose a little exercise. Not an argument, but a bit of mathcraft that might be a bit fun. Make a character that's optimized, or capable of filling his role extremely well in play without using any of the "tax feats." I mean a character that's actually tested in a group through multiple encounters of different varieties, not some statistical analysis that lacks tactical thought or intangible bonuses that can be granted at higher levels.</blockquote>