|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 1:50PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I dunno, it makes sense as a sanity check. Shift is basically "you're pretty good at moving around and not getting hit" and Strike and Fade is "you're really good at moving around and not getting hit"; is it possible to be really good at something, without first being pretty good at it?
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 1:53PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I dunno, it makes sense as a sanity check. Shift is basically "you're pretty good at moving around and not getting hit" and Strike and Fade is "you're really good at moving around and not getting hit"; is it possible to be really good at something, without first being pretty good at it?
They all make sense as a sanity check. But the problem is that sometimes we want to do something crazy.
"Crazy" being defined as "not playing the 'right' way" - whatever that happens to be to whoever is passing the judgment.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 1:57PM
#13
|
|
|
I dunno, it makes sense as a sanity check. Shift is basically "you're pretty good at moving around and not getting hit" and Strike and Fade is "you're really good at moving around and not getting hit"; is it possible to be really good at something, without first being pretty good at it?
I'll agree, which is why it very well might remain that way in the end. Still seems like a waste though.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 2:24PM
#14
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I dunno, it makes sense as a sanity check. Shift is basically "you're pretty good at moving around and not getting hit" and Strike and Fade is "you're really good at moving around and not getting hit"; is it possible to be really good at something, without first being pretty good at it?
The problem is that Shift seems to say "You're so sneaky, you can just sneak away" and Strike and Fade seems to say "You bash the berk in the face and while he's dazed, you make a hasty retreat!"
Shift is sneaky and S&F is brutal. While they both make sense for skirmishers (which is why they are two of the feats in the Skirmisher Specialty), they aren't necessarily tied together.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 2:27PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I generally don't like feat prerequisites.
I would't mind feat synergies - perhaps if you have shift, Strike and Fade works better, but it does something useful by itself as well.
But feat chains in general were one of the most annoying and irritating things about 3.x.
That said - short (two feats) feat chains aren't too bad. But I just don't think it is called for here. I think that the level requirement for Strike and Fade is more than enough as far as prerequisites go.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 3:00PM
#16
|
|
|
I generally don't like feat prerequisites.
I would't mind feat synergies - perhaps if you have shift, Strike and Fade works better, but it does something useful by itself as well.
But feat chains in general were one of the most annoying and irritating things about 3.x.
That said - short (two feats) feat chains aren't too bad. But I just don't think it is called for here. I think that the level requirement for Strike and Fade is more than enough as far as prerequisites go.
Carl
Actually, in terms of scale, even short feat chains in D&D Next is pretty bad, for the simple reason that you have very little space to work with in the first place, so each of your four feat slots would be far more valuable in D&D Next than in every edition prior.
I prefer feat synergies myself; in fact, I'd prefer feats to synergies with classes and class features, as opposed to tacked on game elements that technically simulate a classless environment.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 3:09PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
It's a prerequisite to have shift in order to take strike and fade, but is it counterintuitive to allow one to retrain shift after you've gained strike and fade?
How do we feel about that?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 3:09PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I feel it'd be a nice workaround to something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 3:27PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I feel it'd be a nice workaround to something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
LOL Nice. 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 20, 2013 - 4:06PM
#20
|
|
|
I don't like the term "feat tax" because everyone seems to use it differently. In this case, I think it's fine for this particular feat to have a prerequisite - it helps minimize cherry-picking.
I do devoutly hope they add in more feats, including feats after level 10 - and if they do, all the level 9 "capstone" feats would probably need some readjustment.
|
|
|
