Tinywytch's page

I'm not sure what the value is in calling one kind of feat something different given that they are all chosen the same way and use all the same rules. In cases like these it feels like adjectives are sufficient.

Flavour. Different names are sometimes more evocative and help immersion in the setting. Look at the current keywording choices in games like Magic: The Gathering to see why, sometimes, calling a feat a feat is more mechanical than it wants to be in a game with a fantasy setting.

These things were all always Feat(ure)s you just had relativley little choice about which class features you took unless you archetyped.
Using the sub-Feat words now that you can doesn't change the act you're learning to perform, or really make it easier/harder to grok.
It might actually risk confusion in new players about which feats they can buy in which circumstance. Add in the ten's of keywords that are now attached to make everything 'easier?' and you might actually have made everything harder.
Go and read about elegance in game design.

I am struggling to understand why this targets full AC when it only gives a 10% bonus to hit/miss?
Surely you'd be better making an actual attack that dealt damage, in every instance except where your damage was sub DR.
As an attack it would be subject to the diminishing returns rule and it's not like the bonuses stack.
As it stands this action represents too high a chance of failure for too little reward. One of those things needs to give.

The worst part of this is that the best +level is doing is giving an impression of progression. The same number is added to ac for monsters at your level, and the skill difficulty table increases by one every level, to keep the actual target roll consistant. It's a waste of effort. You could literally have no +level progression and have exactly the same chance of success.
This is of course not consistant with gaining skill points every level as in first meaning skill progression and to-hit would only increase with stats, proficiency level and buffs from players/items. But they do that anyway whilst quickly rendering lower level monsters irrelevant as has been stated elsewhere.
That +level looks great but it is totally meaningless.

I have to say I'm seriously unimpressed by the idea that anything a class feature designates as a mount has to spend a feat to wear a saddle or horse shoes. I can appreciate why that would make sense for a standard companion, but cavaliers suck so much already that this borders on cruelty.

I would like to express my concern that adventures marked as suitable for first level organized play - adventures which feature exclusively low cr monsters in every other encounter - can climax, for example, with a cr3 Bugbear that on average dice rolls will zero almost any first level player-character in a single blow.

Making an adventure challenging is part of the role-play experience, but including such a monster is not challenging. It presents practically no tactical option for success to a first level group, excepting the use of certain spells/effects to which the party may have no access. Not to mention the lack of challenge faced during the rest of the adventure as a result of such heavy single monster weighting.

Challenge is about overcoming odds and I believe there should be a reasonable assumption that those odds can be overcome with reasonable loss to the party. Designing encounters to kill low level pc’s can seriously sour a player’s experience, especially those who are relatively new to the hobby.

I understand that the decision to run modules is taken by individual DM’s, but thought it best to take this opportunity to express my extreme concern and disappointment at such module design.