L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Crazy Jerome · Feb 27, 2012

I can only see feats really working well this way if the feat list is carefully monitored and restricted to giving access to substantial abilities, worth having. That means no huge lists of piddly feats. While certainly possible, it is not something I would want to bet the farm upon.

Dragonblade · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
And... it seems I'm out. Deal-breaker detected.

It seems to me Monte is saying that feats in a 3rd edition sense will be part of the core-sans-modules. It is a non-starter to me. The mistake I'm seeing is that they're trying to make everyone happy with the core-sans-modules, from the get-go, rather than the core+this-or-that-module.

I hope I misunderstand Monte's post here.

Feats should be part of a module. Non-Vancian magic should be part of a module. Skills should be part of a module. Etc. Only the core of the D&D game should be the core of the system sans modules.

The core of the game needs to be just that: the core of the D&D experience. Feats are not part of the core D&D experience, as all the pre-3e editions of the game demonstrate. If these guys can't figure that out, all the rest will suck for me, and a lot of other gamers out there I'm sure. It is "the" component of the game they should not botch.

I don't see that at all from Monte's post.

I think what we will see is a core where the "feat" based abilities are largely baked into the core classes as simplified pre-determined class features. For groups who play straight up core, you just accept whatever ability you get at each level. You don't see the "feats" behind the curtain, so to speak.

For players/groups who want more advanced customization, they can then choose to swap out or customize those class-feature "feats" for different ones. I like this approach a lot, and think its the best way to go to make a simple game without a lot of choice and complexity for those who don't want it, but offers it for those who do, and still allow them both to play at the same table.

I highly doubt that you'll see a 5e that is basically a recreation of Basic D&D, where feats are completely removed from the core experience and only available as an optional add-on. From a design standpoint, that would be a nightmare with massive balance repercussions. You'd essentially be creating two entirely different games, AD&D and 3e D&D, and it would defeat the unification edition goal of having two players play their preferred complexity style at the same table.

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).

Mark CMG · Feb 27, 2012

One idea we’re considering is a magical feat. These feats represent magical abilities that a character can use all the time. For example, we might have a basic feat called Wizard Mark.

While I'm not sure that I agree with the implementation, I find it flattering that they are thinking about naming a feat after me.

Wait, what?

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born.

Castles & Crusades Plus Pre-determined Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.

Scribble · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
3rd edition lite-4e Essentials is not going to work towards a "D&D Edition for all editions". It's been tried before. It might be called Castles & Crusades. Or D&D Essentials. True20. Or whatnot. This is not the market of 2000. This is 2012, and players interested in those play styles have sinced migrated back to their primary games, the question being "if I loved all these bits from AD&D and don't find C&C entirely satisfying for reason X or Y, why don't I just play AD&D itself?" And thus OSRIC, S&W et al. were born.

Castles & Crusades Plus Predeterminded Feats is not going to cut it. Unless of course the whole point is to just go back to 2007 and get some Pathfinder gamers to play WotC's game, which is fine I guess in and of itself, but then don't take me AD&Der for a moron and don't call this the "big tent" or whatever.

There are an awful lot of people who still post to D&D sites and still argue and fight about D&D even when they proclaim not to like the current system. The fact that they're posting to the D&D website (to me at least) seems to indicate they still have some sort of connection with the brand.

I think THESE are the people that WoTC is trying to appeal to.

There will always be people who just don't like it, and want to play something else. I'm sure WoTC knows this. But the people who still post to D&D boards (usually about how bad the system is) tend to at least have reasons (valid or not) about why. Usually involving something the new system doesn't allow them to accomplish.

Wizards is trying to give them a way to accomplish said thing.

I guess only time will tell though whether or not those people have real concerns, whether the game can meet those concerns, or whether those people were just full of hot air and looking to hear themselves bitch (and thus will continue to do so, just changing what they bitched about.)

Hassassin · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
As I said, I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

But honestly? All the talk of feats and stuff? Way to turn me off on the game. And I'm sure I'm not the only one (remember before you answer to this: this game is supposed to appeal to the BOTH of us, not just you).

What is it you don't like about (was it 3e style) feats? Maybe they've fixed those things in 5e. No way to know yet.

Odhanan · Feb 27, 2012

I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills. I play AD&D First Ed now, primarily. One of the reasons I like this game is because I don't have to deal with all that BS at all. This is also the case of a lot of TSR-era fans out there.

The only way the problem with feats is solved to is so I can turn this stuff off completely and forget it exists. Likewise with Skills. And on it goes.

So really: if that's 4e lite for people who like 3rd ed and Pathfinder, I'm cool with it, really, but be forthright about it. Tell it how it is, WotC. Don't try to screw me into believing you actually give a crap about gamers like me by talking about Gygax and OD&D and AD&D every once in a while in your columns. That sure as heck ain't gonna cut it this time.

The irony, and frustration really, is that I can see this, the modular D&D idea, actually working under certain conditions, with a certain understanding of the game, and the modules built to then decline this understanding of the game in different ways for different audiences. I can see it. But what I'm reading here? That ain't it. Nope. Not happening.

So. There are people who have seen the playtest rules apparently, like Rob Conley (writer of the Majestic Wilderlands) or the RPG Pundit (of theRPGsite.com fame) who say that the columns don't reflect what they've seen of the core game (without going into details since they are under NDAs), and they're wondering what the heck is Monte Cook talking about. So my question from there is: what the heck is going on? Tell it like it is. Be straight about it. Explain. Because that starts to look like you guys (WotC) don't really know what it is you're doing.

kitsune9 · Feb 27, 2012

I'm a fan of Vancian magic--it will be interesting to see what WotC develops if they become committed to go this route.

Hassassin · Feb 27, 2012

Odhanan said:
I don't like the fact they exist in the first place. Just like Skills.

That's not a very useful answer. I presume it wouldn't help if they renamed feats "talents" and skills "proficiencies"?

Do you hate any character options outside class? (Then class specific bonus feats could still be ok.)

Do you hate the complexity they add? (Then a short list of simple feats could still be ok.)