Adding things to the game?

[Darth Ultron]

So it all started with the new game where the characters would all be sneaky stealthy types. So each player shows up to Game 0 with such a character. A mix of races and classes, though they all had Sneak Attack in some way. And, of course, they all had the Feat: Craven, as it is one of the few feats that adds to Sneak Attack damage. So every character with Sneak Attack Must have the feat Craven.

So opens the can of worms...

The DM being a Role Player likes the idea that things like Feats help shape the Role Playing of a Character. So, for example, a character with the Craven feat will act in a craven like manner. Of course the Optimizing Roll Playing Characters, and their allies, immediately point out The Almighty Rules. And the Rules say that you just meet the two requirements(not immune to fear and sneak attack) and you can take and use the feat, and you can ignore the fluff.

Then a Sly Player attempts to side, partly, with the DM that fluff part and says ''maybe there should be more feats that add to sneak attack damage, not just Craven. So the idea is there could be a Intimidating Strike for the big powerful sneak attackers, or a Precision Strike for the intelligent sneak attackers or a Surprise Strike for the surprise sneak attackers and so on. So that no matter what type of sneak attack character you had, there would be a Craven like feat for them.

Of course, the Sly Player is only doing this for one reason: To get rid of Cravens requirement to not be immune to fear. Fear is a powerful effect, and lots of character builds need to be immune to fear....but they also need the Craven feat. So the player wants the benefits of the Craven Feat, without the drawback.

And, not so amazingly, the very same players that worshiped the Almighty Rules just moments ago...are suddenly more then willing to say it's ok to change the mechanics of the feat and/or make more feats without the fear drawback. They demand that all fluff must be ignored and the rules Must be followed to the letter, as written.....up until there is a rule they don't like....then, and only then, are they all about rewriting the rules of the game for their own selfish benefit.

So Feats get suggested like Intimidating Strike, just like Craven, but you can't be Immune to Intimidation or Surprise Strike, where you can't be immune to surprise. In all 14 such feats are suggested.

Then, for one step further, the idea is floated that the game should just have Generic Feats for things like this. So there should be a feat of ''Sneak Attack Extra Damage" with the requirement of ''pick one thing your character can't be immune too''.

Of course, the Optimizing Role Players loved this idea, as they could get the ''Sneak Attack Extra Damage", and they would pick immunity to something that would not matter, effect their character or likely come up in the game like ''immunity to disintegration."

So, as this took several hours...this is where Game 0 ended. So, when we all meet up again, the question is what to do?

Do we just make Generic Feats, for everything? Make the 14 sneak attack feats? Have only the DM make the feats? Let the players make the feats?

I have considered just making the generic ''Improved Sneak Attack'' feat, but give it a random table of ''roll once for a thing your character can not be immune to", But that still cares the problem of what if a player rolls something they don't like. They will whine and cry about changing the rules and re-rolling, so it makes the random roll a bit pointless to even do.

So, does the ''Sneak Attack Extra Damage" feat need a drawback? Is ''not one immunity'' even a good draw back? What would be a good drawback that Optimizing Roll Players would like and accept without question that IS really a drawback and not something silly and pointless(like the drawback of ''if you take this feat you can't role play, ever'' haha)?

[Venger]

I'm not sure why you're disguising the fact that you're gm.

You know, stormwind is a fallacy, not a principle to be followed.

Despite your overt hatred for them, the rules of the game are important, and they exist for a reason. Without them, you may as well freeform RP. Craven gives a penalty to saves vs fear, and prevents you from having fear immunity. That's it. Feats that have a prereq regarding the way your character is allowed to act, such as the sacred vow line or hand of tyr will say so. Craven doesn't, so stop pretending your houserules are raw and that "rules" is a dirty word. Let your players make up these feats if it brings them joy and stop harshing their vibe. Sneak attack is weak as hell. Feats like craven helping precision damage users shore up their dps isn't going to break the game, even if you do remove the drawback (which yes, is too severe)

Providing a list of other effects that aren't as pervasive as fear (note: they should be things that don't come up as much as fear, not things that come up more, so don't try to hurt your players further by saying something like "ability damage") is a good idea. Rolling is not. Players need to be able to control how they build their characters, and it's clear from the context if they roll something they're already immune to for other reasons, you're not going to cut them any slack.

Rules of the game exist for a reason. If you change them constantly, or continue to try to browbeat your players into playing a freeform game, which from any post where you discuss rules, it seems like you would enjoy a whole lot more, then of course the players are going to be dissatisfied. Trying to make their concerns sound unfounded by mischaracterizing them as "whining and crying" each time does not make you more sympathetic in our eyes.

The real question here is are you actually looking for advice, or are you just ranting again about rudisplorkers who dare to try to do actually anything in your game? If the former, then what kind of advice would be helpful for you?

[Saintheart]

The DM being a Role Player likes the idea that things like Feats help shape the Role Playing of a Character. So, for example, a character with the Craven feat will act in a craven like manner.

The name of a feat is not a roleplaying command, any more than Shock Trooper requires that you must be a member of an elite military formation created to lead an attack or that you have to scream at your fellow partymates to get back in formation all the time.

Insofar as the feat provides nudges or character direction, it's found only in the feat's fluff:


Like most sly rogues, you are a dangerous coward.

So you're presumably sly and you're a rogue. The phrase dangerous coward can be interpreted any number of ways. Rincewind is a dangerous coward: he avoids combat when he can, and is extremely dangerous since there's a world-ending spell bouncing around inside his head. A dangerous coward could be a guy who doesn't fight with honour and stabs people in the back whenever he can. Doesn't mean he has to run away screaming from any major threat. Indeed given the entire party is made up of stealth-focused rogue types it would be distinctly out of character for one of them to go striding up to their opponents going all Morturi e saluti and that.

[Extra Anchovies]

If the players feel Craven is necessary for the party to handle the combat encounters you present, give every PC +level to sneak attack and remove Craven as a feat. If the players feel Craven is necessary to keep up with the other players (which honestly is kinda reasonable if they're playing similar or the same classes, cuz +level to damage can be kind of a lot), don't allow Craven.

'Sly' has a decent point, or something close to it - gameplay incentives for character behaviors can be starkly disruptive to good roleplaying and storytelling. The players seem both interested in having distinctly individual characters and also aware that uncommonly strong game rewards for specific sorts of characters will push them towards replicating those sorts of characters and ending up with an all-Craven party.

[Fouredged Sword]

I feel you want to incentivise sneaking and sneak attacks in this game you want to play. To this end I DO suggest just giving your players +character level to sneak attack damage. Why? To make sneak attacks more fun and to even further make the game about sneaking and attacking from advantage. All players are evenly buffed so nobody will be left out.

Simple, not game breaking, but fun. Go for just letting your players have the play style they want.

[Bavarian itP]

Any option that is so good that every character (to which the option applies) must take it, is a terrible option from a game design viewpoint. Examples include Natural Spell, Pounce and perhaps even Improved Initiative. Every GM must make a choice whether to ban this kind of options or just give it to everyone for free. Both ways are fine, and certainly better than RAW.

[Venger]

Any option that is so good that every character (to which the option applies) must take it, is a terrible option from a game design viewpoint. Examples include Natural Spell, Pounce and perhaps even Improved Initiative. Every GM must make a choice whether to ban this kind of options or just give it to everyone for free. Both ways are fine, and certainly better than RAW.

well it's not that things like craven or darkstalker or power attack are broken, like natural spell, it's that mundane base classes lacked these necessary capabilities natively through class features, since they're not allowed to have nice things. giving them to them for free makes sense, banning them does not.

[Malimar]

Will your houserule, that a character with Craven needs to behave like a coward, actually improve the game? I doubt it.

Would a slew of Craven-like feats, or a single one with fear replaced with any one thing the character can't be immune to, or whatever homebrew Craven alternative you or your players want, improve the game? I doubt it.

Craven isn't broken. Just leave the game as it is in this case.

[Jiece18]

At the end of the day, D&D is a role playing game. While the vast majority of the feats couldn’t care less about how the character acts, some of them do.

I am no stranger to modifying feats or rules to improve the game, but I generally don’t change role playing fluff. It is part of the fun. And while I won’t call the game balanced by a long shot, most of the negative side effects of a feat/class is designed to introduce balance with the positives.

If all the players don’t care about fluff and just want to optimize their builds, then might as well let them. Just make sure you optimize the encounters. Fair is fair.

As for making up feats, that is on The DM shoulders. He runs the game and makes/enforces the rules as he sees fit. But be careful. The game can quickly become not fun if things need to be constantly changed to make players happy.

[Nifft]

I like when role-play is encouraged via carrots -- like, the Craven feat might give you a cookie-token when you behave in a craven manner.

I don't like when a DM tries to tell me how to live my life— er, play my character.

[Karl Aegis]

It really sounds like your players are missing the point of playing sneaky characters if they spend hours discussing what amounts to setting-specific cheese. I don't think the players understood the DM wanted a sneaky character game where combat was avoided and loot was obtained. I guess the message the players were trying to send was, "we don't want to play your game". You may have to do another Game 0 at some point to reaffirm that the game is for sneaky characters. Maybe introduce some enemies with poor detection skills and immunity to critical hits like Automatons in the meantime.

[DarkSoul]

Ban the feat. Then no one has to worry about it; it levels the playing field just as much as +level to sneak attack damage and you don't have to worry about coming up with a bunch of new feats that all do the same thing just because people don't like the idea of having to deal with weaknesses as a trade-off for significant power gains.

If you don't want to ban it outright, just tell them that if they want to take the feat, it has to be reflected in the roleplaying of their characters. If they don't want to do it, no feat. Other characters lose access to class features and/or feats if they don't adhere to roleplaying standards; sneak attackers can too.

[Venger]

Yeah, that'll show your players to try to do anything.

[DarkSoul]

Yeah, that'll show your players to try to do anything.If by "try to do anything" you mean "come up with a way to ignore the drawback, but still gain all the benefit, of the Craven feat because having to roleplay something sucks", then yes, I'll shut them down every time. My players know that there needs to be justification for their character decisions beyond "the rules say I can".

[Zaq]

The “drawback” that really matters is paying a feat. Feats aren’t cheap. It should be rare indeed that a feat should impose an additional cost above and beyond the feat slot itself to offer its benefit.

[Venger]

If by "try to do anything" you mean "come up with a way to ignore the drawback, but still gain all the benefit, of the Craven feat because having to roleplay something sucks", then yes, I'll shut them down every time. My players know that there needs to be justification for their character decisions beyond "the rules say I can".

The drawback is not being allowed to be immune to fear and -2 on saves vs. fear. Contrary to Darth Ultron's wishes, craven, and all other game options, do not allow the gm to tell you exactly how your character should be played. Players' natural resistance to this should not be punished by saying "fine, you won't play your character how I say, then you can't take craven


The “drawback” that really matters is paying a feat. Feats aren’t cheap. It should be rare indeed that a feat should impose an additional cost above and beyond the feat slot itself to offer its benefit.

Yeah, and craven just shouldn't have a mechanical drawback in the first place. It's one of the only feats that does this. Casters don't get banned from taking necessary immunities when they take metamagic feats. This isn't even a stock "mundanes can't have nice things," because normal feats like power attack don't come with an enormous disability. Feats are supposed to make your character stronger, not weaker.

[DarkSoul]

The drawback is not being allowed to be immune to fear and -2 on saves vs. fear. Contrary to Darth Ultron's wishes, craven, and all other game options, do not allow the gm to tell you exactly how your character should be played. Players' natural resistance to this should not be punished by saying "fine, you won't play your character how I say, then you can't take cravenThe problem is that the players want all of the bonus and none of the drawback, thus their suggestion to create other feats that do the same thing, but force the character to be susceptible to a different effect, such as disintegration, which as he already said won't be much of a concern in the game. Since every one of them would have the same ability anyway, then just ban the feat. If everyone has the same +Level bonus to sneak attacks, then it might as well not even be a feat at all, and just become a class feature. At that point it's no different than not having the class feature at all except that SA numbers are bigger than they already were. All this does is skew the tuning of ordinary encounters because now the extra X damage per attack needs to be accounted for. So ban the feat, no one has to deal with a drawback, and the SA damage ceiling and floor are lowered a little. Apologies (not really) to the players whose primary joy in playing comes from rolling the biggest numbers.

[Venger]

The problem is that the players want all of the bonus and none of the drawback, thus their suggestion to create other feats that do the same thing, but force the character to be susceptible to a different effect, such as disintegration, which as he already said won't be much of a concern in the game. Since every one of them would have the same ability anyway, then just ban the feat. If everyone has the same +Level bonus to sneak attacks, then it might as well not even be a feat at all, and just become a class feature. At that point it's no different than not having the class feature at all except that SA numbers are bigger than they already were. All this does is skew the tuning of ordinary encounters because now the extra X damage per attack needs to be accounted for. So ban the feat, no one has to deal with a drawback, and the SA damage ceiling and floor are lowered a little. Apologies (not really) to the players whose primary joy in playing comes from rolling the biggest numbers.

Ah, so your suggestion was to just make craven a part of the class, like darkstalker ought to be, rather than say they can't get the effect at all for daring to go against Darth Ultron's script.

Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making. In that case, I completely agree. Cool strawman, go look up the stormwind fallacy.

[DarkSoul]

Ah, so your suggestion was to just make craven a part of the class, like darkstalker ought to be, rather than say they can't get the effect at all for daring to go against Darth Ultron's script.

Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making. In that case, I completely agree. Cool strawman, go look up the stormwind fallacy.No, my suggestion was pretty clearly stated, you just have a problem with my reasoning. Also, I was reading the WotC CharOp boards when Tempest WROTE his fallacy, I'm well aware of the fact that optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my suggestions come from a position of using a character's mechanical decisions to fuel the roleplaying of said character, and using the roleplaying of a character to dictate the kinds of mechanical decisions they should or shouldn't make. If you're going to take a feat that says you're a craven bastard that one shouldn't turn their back on, then play them that way. If you don't want to play as craven, then don't take a feat that says you are.

Considering you're implying that I was saying something different that what I (plainly) was, I guess you know what you can do with your strawman. Finally, in light of the fact that you're attempting to intentionally misrepresent what I said, how about you go look up what a strawman argument actually is, and move out of your glass house before you break it?

[Venger]

No, my suggestion was pretty clearly stated, you just have a problem with my reasoning. Also, I was reading the WotC CharOp boards when Tempest WROTE his fallacy, I'm well aware of the fact that optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. In fact, my suggestions come from a position of using a character's mechanical decisions to fuel the roleplaying of said character, and using the roleplaying of a character to dictate the kinds of mechanical decisions they should or shouldn't make. If you're going to take a feat that says you're a craven bastard that one shouldn't turn their back on, then play them that way. If you don't want to play as craven, then don't take a feat that says you are.

Considering you're implying that I was saying something different that what I (plainly) was, I guess you know what you can do with your strawman. Finally, in light of the fact that you're attempting to intentionally misrepresent what I said, how about you go look up what a strawman argument actually is, and move out of your glass house before you break it?

I was reading those threads back then too. How exactly is that relevant?

No, they don't.

When a feat's mechanics restrict what how you are and aren't allowed to roleplay your character, such as hand of tyr or vow of peace, they will say so. Craven does not have any such limitations about what your character is or is not allowed to do aside from become immune to fear. Saying that it does is fine as a terrible houserule, but it is not raw.

I'm doing no such thing, I'm just responding to what you actually said. If you mean different things, then say those things. Great attitude.

[frogglesmash]

So, I'm not entirely clear why anyone thinks the players are even capable of not roleplaying this feat. Craven simply says that you are a "dangerous coward," and the feat improves your sneak attack making you more dangerous, and it makes you more vulnerable to fear effects, which, as far as I can tell, is a simple and effective way to mechanically enforce cowardly roleplay. I think it's also important that while craven says you are a coward, that does not necessarily make it your character's defining characteristic, nor does it mean that you are terrified all all things that are even vaguely threatening.

As for the creation of modular craven feats, if you're worried about them selecting irrelevant immunities, you should have your players brainstorm a list of possible immunities, and then go through it yourself and hand pick which one's you think are acceptable. I think it would be cool of you to just give them all the benefits of craven for free without the drawback for this campaign, as it supports the "all rogues" gimmick while gently promoting greater character diversity, and as far as freebies go, it's not exactly game breaking.

[DarkSoul]

If you mean different things, then say those things. Great attitude.I said exactly what I meant: Ban the feat, it's doing nothing but creating more work for the DM if everyone thinks it's completely necessary but doesn't want to deal with the drawback. You're the one that came at me with the attitude and tried to imply I was saying something different than what I was, so I'm returning the favor. I'm done with it, though, unless you'd like to continue.

Darth Ultron's game will be easier for him to run if he simply gets rid of the feat, since no one wants to accept that the gain it offers comes with a hindrance, and would rather try to get around it through some flimsy justification like "I can't be immune to hangovers so I get to add my level to my sneak attack damage" or convincing him to just let everyone add their level to SA anyway.

[frogglesmash]

I said exactly what I meant: Ban the feat, it's doing nothing but creating more work for the DM if everyone thinks it's completely necessary but doesn't want to deal with the drawback. You're the one that came at me with the attitude and tried to imply I was saying something different than what I was, so I'm returning the favor. I'm done with it, though, unless you'd like to continue.

Darth Ultron's game will be easier for him to run if he simply gets rid of the feat, since no one wants to accept that the gain it offers comes with a hindrance, and would rather try to get around it through some flimsy justification like "I can't be immune to hangovers so I get to add my level to my sneak attack damage" or convincing him to just let everyone add their level to SA anyway.

It actually seems that all the players were fine with taking the feat as is, but the DM was not happy that the players were ignoring the perceived roleplay requirements. As a compromise, one of the players offered a solution and that solution was met with little to no resistance and was thus explored further, in part because it was mechanically superior to the default option.

[DarkSoul]

So, I'm not entirely clear why anyone thinks the players are even capable of not roleplaying this feat. Craven simply says that you are a "dangerous coward," and the feat improves your sneak attack making you more dangerous, and it makes you more vulnerable to fear effects, which, as far as I can tell, is a simple and effective way to mechanically enforce cowardly roleplay. I think it's also important that while craven says you are a coward, that does not necessarily make it your character's defining characteristic, nor does it mean that you are terrified all all things that are even vaguely threatening.

As for the creation of modular craven feats, if you're worried about them selecting irrelevant immunities, you should have your players brainstorm a list of possible immunities, and then go through it yourself and hand pick which one's you think are acceptable. I think it would be cool of you to just give them all the benefits of craven for free without the drawback for this campaign, as it supports the "all rogues" gimmick while gently promoting greater character diversity, and as far as freebies go, it's not exactly game breaking.It's not that they're incapable of roleplaying it. It's that they don't want to roleplay it, nor do they want to be susceptible to fear, but they still want the benefit. That's where the suggestions for ways to have the benefit with no, or irrelevant, drawbacks are coming from.

I would definitely support the idea of working with the players to have meaningful drawbacks for this ability or variant feats, on the condition that if they aren't actually relevant then the feat simply goes away.

[frogglesmash]

It's not that they're incapable of roleplaying it. It's that they don't want to roleplay it, nor do they want to be susceptible to fear, but they still want the benefit. That's where the suggestions for ways to have the benefit with no, or irrelevant, drawbacks are coming from.

I would definitely support the idea of working with the players to have meaningful drawbacks for this ability or variant feats, on the condition that if they aren't actually relevant then the feat simply goes away.

As I said in my last comment, they all seemed initially willing to play the feat as is, but when presented with a superior option, were naturally more inclined to chose that instead. As for the roleplaying, it's mechanically enforced, so long as they take the vanilla version of craven, they will be roleplaying it whether they like it or not.

[Blu]

I said exactly what I meant: Ban the feat, it's doing nothing but creating more work for the DM if everyone thinks it's completely necessary but doesn't want to deal with the drawback. You're the one that came at me with the attitude and tried to imply I was saying something different than what I was, so I'm returning the favor. I'm done with it, though, unless you'd like to continue.

Darth Ultron's game will be easier for him to run if he simply gets rid of the feat, since no one wants to accept that the gain it offers comes with a hindrance, and would rather try to get around it through some flimsy justification like "I can't be immune to hangovers so I get to add my level to my sneak attack damage" or convincing him to just let everyone add their level to SA anyway.

You are going for a strawman fallacy because at no point seemed that Darth Ultron's players wanted to avoid the drawbacks from Craven. They probably were perfectly fine to never be immune to fear and to get the penalty, what said players were not fine with, where the DM fiated new drawbacks that he simply imposed on his players. And when said players tryed to go for other Craven-like feats so that they could RP their characters the way they want without being forced to RP in a specific way, he throwns a tantrum and starts ranting about how they want to avoid drawbacks for problems he invented.

Also i will question Darth Ultrons definition of ROLE PLAYER. Normally i would assume that label is for players that prioritize the roleplay aspect of the game, but i question that someone that cares for roleplay would actually make such a silly decisions. The persons who defines himself as role player was adjudicating for all characters to roleplay the same, going against diversity on character, just to add insult to injury, he proposed an "all sneaky" campaign and any good DM would be cautious with that concept, trying to avoid having similar RP for characters, exactly not what Darth Ultron did.

If you don't frequent this forums much, Darth Ultron is a user that just comes up every now and then, makes a lot of ranting and vanishes. It seems to be on a personal crusade against this enemy on his head called optimizers or such.
I feel it was pretty clear that this was a rant with just how much he leads and tries to picture himself as the good guy and his players like dirty munchkins.

[Venger]

You are going for a strawman fallacy because at no point seemed that Darth Ultron's players wanted to avoid the drawbacks from Craven. They probably were perfectly fine to never be immune to fear and to get the penalty, what said players were not fine with, where the DM fiated new drawbacks that he simply imposed on his players. And when said players tryed to go for other Craven-like feats so that they could RP their characters the way they want without being forced to RP in a specific way, he throwns a tantrum and starts ranting about how they want to avoid drawbacks for problems he invented.
Well summarized. This is exactly what actually happened.


Also i will question Darth Ultrons definition of ROLE PLAYER. Normally i would assume that label is for players that prioritize the roleplay aspect of the game, but i question that someone that cares for roleplay would actually make such a silly decisions. The persons who defines himself as role player was adjudicating for all characters to roleplay the same, going against diversity on character, just to add insult to injury, he proposed an "all sneaky" campaign and any good DM would be cautious with that concept, trying to avoid having similar RP for characters, exactly not what Darth Ultron did.
Darth Ultron is not interested in role playing. He just wants to whine about players trying to actually do anything instead of just letting him dictate everything that happens in the game.


If you don't frequent this forums much, Darth Ultron is a user that just comes up every now and then, makes a lot of ranting and vanishes. It seems to be on a personal crusade against this enemy on his head called optimizers or such.
I feel it was pretty clear that this was a rant with just how much he leads and tries to picture himself as the good guy and his players like dirty munchkins.

Yes, but even when he's trying to misrepresent his players as being bad for daring to want to actually do anything and paint himself as a martyr, he still doesn't come off well.

[Blu]

Yes, but even when he's trying to misrepresent his players as being bad for daring to want to actually do anything and paint himself as a martyr, he still doesn't come off well.

With how much people are taking him seriusly on this post and even some agreeing to him i think he managed to come off as the victim/good guy, that or they are just being naive.

[Venger]

With how much people are taking him seriusly on this post and even some agreeing to him i think he managed to come off as the victim/good guy, that or they are just being naive.

Probably, as you said, they're just not familiar with his schtick.

[King of Nowhere]

I think the problem here is in the craven feat and its basic premise.

I mean: you get extra precision attack...for being afraid???

THAT'S PURE RUBBISH NONSENSE! HOW BEING AFRAID SHOULD POSSIBLY MAKE ONE MORE ACCURATE IN DEALING DAMAGE??????

I could understand a similar feat for warrior being justified by the adrenaline rush, but precision damage requires, you know, precision. Which you won't have if you're afraid, since fear makes yoyr hands shake.

So what I'd do would be simply to rework the craven feat. It won't have anything to do with fear. You want to keep a drawback? Find some drawback that makes actual sense. Or remove the drawback entirely. Or maybe, if you think craven without drawback is too powerful, just split it into two feats, each giving + half level to sneak attack damage.

That's what I'd do. the idea that precision attack damage should be linked to fear susceptibility is just too stupid to consider.


Any option that is so good that every character (to which the option applies) must take it, is a terrible option from a game design viewpoint. Examples include Natural Spell, Pounce and perhaps even Improved Initiative. Every GM must make a choice whether to ban this kind of options or just give it to everyone for free. Both ways are fine, and certainly better than RAW.
+1 on that. different options lead to greater customization, things everyone wants lead to all characters being the same.

And since it's a game of 4 rogues, I'd give them all the craven feat for free (maybe with half the benefit if it could be too strong otherwise) and let them pick different feats at first level, so they can differentiate their characters some more.

[DarkSoul]

You are going for a strawman fallacy because at no point seemed that Darth Ultron's players wanted to avoid the drawbacks from Craven. They probably were perfectly fine to never be immune to fear and to get the penalty, what said players were not fine with, where the DM fiated new drawbacks that he simply imposed on his players. And when said players tryed to go for other Craven-like feats so that they could RP their characters the way they want without being forced to RP in a specific way, he throwns a tantrum and starts ranting about how they want to avoid drawbacks for problems he invented.Actually the exact point where it's apparent (based on what we know of the situation) that his players wanted to avoid Craven's drawbacks is the fourth paragraph. I'm not sure what part of that was missed. Suggesting another option to acquire something that doesn't apply the normal penalties for said acquisition pretty much defines the phrase "wanting to avoid the drawbacks". Therefore, my suggestion to him stands regardless of his personality or what the actual situation may or may not be.

Even if it were a hypothetical situation from another poster, along the lines of "For a city based campaign, if the players all showed up with the Craven feat, would you just let them add their level to sneak attacks instead?", my response would be the same because all you're doing is shifting the SA damage floor and ceiling up versus not having Craven available at all. It literally does nothing except create bigger numbers, which the DM then has to constantly account for. It's far simpler to just remove the feat, and no one's any less effective at sneak attacking relative to each other than they were when everyone had a craven effect.

[frogglesmash]

Actually the exact point where it's apparent (based on what we know of the situation) that his players wanted to avoid Craven's drawbacks is the fourth paragraph. I'm not sure what part of that was missed. Suggesting another option to acquire something that doesn't apply the normal penalties for said acquisition pretty much defines the phrase "wanting to avoid the drawbacks". Therefore, my suggestion to him stands regardless of his personality or what the actual situation may or may not be.

Even if it were a hypothetical situation from another poster, along the lines of "For a city based campaign, if the players all showed up with the Craven feat, would you just let them add their level to sneak attacks instead?", my response would be the same because all you're doing is shifting the SA damage floor and ceiling up versus not having Craven available at all. It literally does nothing except create bigger numbers, which the DM then has to constantly account for. It's far simpler to just remove the feat, and no one's any less effective at sneak attacking relative to each other than they were when everyone had a craven effect.

You kind of ignored the part where all the players were fine with taking vanilla craven until the DM started complaining. The alternate craven feats we're a proposed solution to the DM's complaints.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that you've ignored that fact after I've pointed it out at least twice before.

[Fouredged Sword]

I think the problem both sides of this argument are having is that one side sees craven as a title, and one as a description.

From there the basic argument over "ignoring drawbacks" comes into play where the DM and players have different expectations for the game.

It comes down to building a character for the DM at your table and running an adventure for the players. Crossed lines of communication and expectations lead to salt.

And craven does not mean cowardly. It means "without honor". You do more damage because you strike in dishonorable places because you put your fear over honor and choose to inflict maximum pain.

[frogglesmash]

I think the problem both sides of this argument are having is that one side sees craven as a title, and one as a description.

From there the basic argument over "ignoring drawbacks" comes into play where the DM and players have different expectations for the game.

It comes down to building a character for the DM at your table and running an adventure for the players. Crossed lines of communication and expectations lead to salt

I've also explained twice how the feat generates craven behaviour through it's mechanics, the only problem I could see a DM having with this feat in terms of roleplay, is the degree of cravenness exhibited by the player.

[DarkSoul]

You kind of ignored the part where all the players were fine with taking vanilla craven until the DM started complaining. The alternate craven feats we're a proposed solution to the DM's complaints.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that you've ignored that fact after I've pointed it out at least twice before.Yes, they were fine with it, until it appears the DM said they would be expected to roleplay craven behavior as well, at which point they started looking for other ways to gain the mechanical benefit. Considering the DM's position on roleplaying the decisions you've made for your character, I can understand his frustration. It's like a druid taking Rashemi Elemental Summoning and never having been to Rashemen. How, exactly, do you justify your character having the feat? Because it exists? For some DM's that's not good enough.

[frogglesmash]

Yes, they were fine with it, until it appears the DM said they would be expected to roleplay craven behavior as well, at which point they started looking for other ways to gain the mechanical benefit. Considering the DM's position on roleplaying the decisions you've made for your character, I can understand his frustration. It's like a druid taking Rashemi Elemental Summoning and never having been to Rashemen. How, exactly, do you justify your character having the feat? Because it exists? For some DM's that's not good enough.

Okay, now you're ignoring my comments concerning mechanics and their effects on roleplay, it would save everyone a lot of hassle of you stopped cherry picking people's statements.

[DarkSoul]

Okay, now you're ignoring my comments concerning mechanics and their effects on roleplay, it would save everyone a lot of hassle of you stopped cherry picking people's statements.I understand where your coming from, and that the mechanics of the feat reinforce its fluff. You pointed out that I wasn't addressing one of your points, so I did. Do you want your statements addressed directly or not? I agree with your comments about mechanics so there's nothing to say in response to them, so I didn't. If that bothers you, well, that's on you.

The fact remains that the DM has expectations of the players above and beyond what's printed regarding roleplay and their character decisions. According to him, they didn't like it and tried to work around it. So I still stand by my statement that simply banning the feat and the bonus it gives will prevent the most headaches.