Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 6474726" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Zard, the only reason to allow feats in the first place is to increase customization options.&nbsp; The game functions with or without them just fine, but there is an inherent increase in system mastery as options increase for optimizers.&nbsp; 5e is more geared towards group optimization than individual optimization, in my opinion, but individual and group optimizing will occur.Run games without feats if you prefer and the game still works.&nbsp; -5/+10 really kind of sucks for the cost of a feat without the accuracy enhancements to offset them and bonus attacks to really take advantage of that bonus so I keep them as is.&nbsp; Multi-classing is something I prefer to disallow for similar reasons, however. ;-)Fortunately, feats are in short supply and archery fighting style has limited access.&nbsp; Taking damage feats because MOAR DPR means giving up better utility or defense or ability scores that improve offense, defense, and utility.&nbsp; There are quite a few good feats that are not damage feats lost to opportunity costs because of ability score increases and damage feats, and while it's easy to compare damage for a feat to damage for not having that feat it's harder to compare damage for a feat to living longer or increase versatility for having a different feat because it's more apples to oranges.&nbsp; Those damage feats are for damage builds.&nbsp; It's not really an issue for the game if damage is what players focus on because they like bigger numbers more than alternative benefits.Just my 2 cents.&nbsp; As stated above, the only reason to allow feats is for increased options and customization.&nbsp; They're optional to begin with and not all feats need to be allowed even if some are.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 6474726, member: 6750235"] Zard, the only reason to allow feats in the first place is to increase customization options. The game functions with or without them just fine, but there is an inherent increase in system mastery as options increase for optimizers. 5e is more geared towards group optimization than individual optimization, in my opinion, but individual and group optimizing will occur. Run games without feats if you prefer and the game still works. -5/+10 really kind of sucks for the cost of a feat without the accuracy enhancements to offset them and bonus attacks to really take advantage of that bonus so I keep them as is. Multi-classing is something I prefer to disallow for similar reasons, however. ;-) Fortunately, feats are in short supply and archery fighting style has limited access. Taking damage feats because MOAR DPR means giving up better utility or defense or ability scores that improve offense, defense, and utility. There are quite a few good feats that are not damage feats lost to opportunity costs because of ability score increases and damage feats, and while it's easy to compare damage for a feat to damage for not having that feat it's harder to compare damage for a feat to living longer or increase versatility for having a different feat because it's more apples to oranges. Those damage feats are for damage builds. It's not really an issue for the game if damage is what players focus on because they like bigger numbers more than alternative benefits. Just my 2 cents. As stated above, the only reason to allow feats is for increased options and customization. They're optional to begin with and not all feats need to be allowed even if some are. [/QUOTE]

Verification