+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 91
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 03:30 AM #21
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Another point: the separation does not prevent the character you want to build.
If the DM runs a combat heavy game and suggests no backgrounds: tack on a background anyway to develop your character.
If the DM runs a roleplay heavy game and focuses must on skills and traits and never resorts to combat: the min-maxer can add on combat feats to his/her heart's content without overbalancing the game at the table.
You could even create one character with both sides, and play in multiple games depending on the group - and it will be an effective character no matter the playstyle!
I would consider that a huge boon.
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 03:36 AM #22
Lama (Lvl 13)
Actually the only people who would be happy with siloing are people who care about balance all the time or who happen to be involved on an arms at race to overdo each other. (for them it is a good thing, it isn't nice to be a scrub on a party full of munchkins). However it isn't the case for all people.
The best way to handle this I guess would be with a module. Not all groups are made equal and not all players care about the same things.
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 03:39 AM #23Well, I for one hope they eventually make it so that feats can be taken on an individual basis rather than only part of specialties. For all its problems, it's a layer of further character customization that I like, and I'd be sad to see it go.
Also, the more I think about what I wrote above, the more I'm unsure of it. So I hope no one thinks I'm being combative.
Perhaps instead of combat feats and non-combat feats that help you avoid fights, non-combat feats just mean they are good for not-combatting if you don't want to focus your character that way?
In the case of the snake oil saleman example for instance, perhaps instead of sweet talking the cultist into abjuring his god, his feat has to do with him sniveling in the corner and whimpering so that he's neglected when attempts to avoid it fails. Or something else perhaps a little less cowardly. (just spitballing here).
Last edited by bogmad; Wednesday, 26th September, 2012 at 05:44 AM. Reason: don't want to insult anyone's hypothetical character
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 03:43 AM #24
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
I think ease of use is not to be underestimated. Saying "create a character without background or traits is much easier than "don't choose non-combat related feats."
I'm also thinking having an option for each pillar built into the character sheet can only improve the game.
Since 3.0 I hated having to choose between Skill Mastery and Spell Focus. I wanted an awesome Knowledge check, but also be effective in combat. I don't think it's a bad thing to be able to do both. I don't mind choosing between Spell Focus and Metamagic: they're combat choices. I also don't mind needing to choose the skill I put ranks in. But they should develop simultaneously.
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 06:26 AM #25
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
As always, KM and KL make good arguments. Let me respond in a roundabout way.
The absolute worst class ability in 3e, IMO, is Tracking. Why? Because it takes a straightforward and very common use of the skill system and makes it something class-specific. My elven wizard grew up in these forests and is following a band of orcs? Too bad, should have taken a level of ranger.
Most non-combat aspects of d&d are fairly free form. That's WHY, as KM points out, a fighter with the right background or a sorcerer with good Cha can contribute to social encounters: because the social encounter rules boil down to a few skills and ability checks. But if there was a Master Negotiator specialty that gave you advantage on all social checks and let you use them against enemies in combat... Uh oh, either a bard with that specialty can win most encounters without unsheathing a blade or else the raw skills have to be Nerfed so that the specialty is worthwhile.
In other words, if you can choose what pillar to spend your feats on, the feats must be mediocre, or else anyone who invested in the "wrong" pillar feels screwed. Not just because their teammates outshine them, but because monsters and traps and dungeons and social encounters must be designed around some target level of proficiency in each pillar.
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 07:33 AM #26
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Block Li Shenron
But I have to say (even tho I like the 3ed approach to feats), that if feats were all combat-based, then I can easily opt not to use feats at all, and voilá my campaign is immediately a little less combat-centric.
If feats are all-purpose, then in order to have a Druid with Herbalism or a Wizard with a Familiar, I have to take the whole feats/specialties package into the game, or alternatively I have to go through the list of feats and pick which ones are in (it might be easier to just say "only non-combat feats" if these are enough).
The flip of the coin of course is that if there are both combat and non-combat feats, you can then leave it up to each player which pillar to focus more, so I think eventually the designers will go this route (as we have in fact seen so far).
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 01:01 PM #27
Lama (Lvl 13)
Before 3e, you picked your race, picked/rolled your ability scores, picked your class and... that was about it. There were optional weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, casters could pick spells, and rogues could assign points to their theiving skills, but that was it. That was literally all there was to your character. 3e came around and gave us a robust skill system and feats, and it really opened up alot of possibilities. It wasn't perfect, but I don't want to see that level of choice go away.
Having all feats be part of a pre-made package just diminishes the number of options I have for customizing my character. It just rubs me the wrong way, though I understand why they did it.
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 02:27 PM #28
Guide (Lvl 11)
I certainly don't want to *have to* gain some new combat ability at fixed levels, it's nice to develop a character in other directions, but I understand the desire to avoid trap choices. Allowing any character to specialise too heavily in one area is usually bad for the game and the DM's sanity.
Perhaps some of the feats we've seen so far could include a non-combat usage. Or even the whole speciality. For instance, the Archer might be able to fashion arrows as a Fletcher and craft a bow given time and access to materials. They might also gain a bonus to disable traps that fire arrows or darts. The Acolyte should maybe be trained in Religion? Perhaps they can also perform basic clerical services (a formal blessing from the right god would be useful for a bargain). Perhaps they can also sanctify holy water as well as a weapon, provided they have powdered silver.
The trouble I'm seeing at the moment is that backgrounds don't give you all that much access to interesting skills or abilities for use in non-combat pillars. Some classes do, some don't. Feats definitely don't. So how else are you supposed to get them?
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 02:39 PM #29
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
I think the OP is right...and so are you.
Feats SHOULD be combat only...what we need is a new term for non-combat "feats"...lets call them talents.
If you got both Talents and Feats, you could build a decent combat character as well as have decent non-combat features. The problems usually arise when you have to choose between RP-oriented feats and combat-oriented feat. You always feel the 'other' pillar is short-changed.
So I say, Bring on the Talents!
Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 07:06 PM #30
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
@jrowland - I completely agree. I think we're running into a semantics problem here. The claim has been made that feats should be combat-oriented. The reply: "But wait! What if I want non-combat feats?" (Jack-of-All-Trades aside; see question below.) That's a valid concern, but it's skirting around the issue. The issue at hand is that we're going to define some new terms before moving on. Let's take this concept of "feats" and apply them only to combat. There, done, we now have a dedicated design space for combat abilities. What we can then do is take a look at non-combat abilities and dedicate a design space for them as well. Saying that Backgrounds are not sufficient to handle non-combat abilities does not logically lead to the conclusion that non-combat abilities should instead be covered by feats. It's one conclusion, but I think the more elegant solution is to develop Backgrounds. Let's leave feats as the combat design space. I think it's a good thing that it has been siloed. What we're left with is the question of what to do with the remaining pillars of social interaction and exploration. Can Backgrounds and Skills handle both of these? Or can we come up with a different solution that tackles each of those pillars separately as well as Specialties/Feats tackle combat abilities? One thing I mentioned in my last survey was that I think Backgrounds should continue to give you benefits as you level up. I'm a thief; why can't I keep becoming a better thief as time goes by? Likewise for knights, bounty hunters, sages, book binders, whatever. If so, perhaps "Background" could become "Occupation," I don't know. Whatever the case, the fact that Specialties/Feats only deals with combat is a good thing. If the current system for handling social/exploration skills is not robust enough, then let's ask WotC to make that system more robust rather than ask them to intrude on an existing design space that already does a good job at what it intends to do.
On another note, I have a very legitimate and sincere question. For all those folks who want to get non-combat prowess with their feats, I'll assume that Jack-of-All-Trades is not sufficient, or this would be a non-issue. Why is it not sufficient?
By Trance-Zg in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 17Last Post: Wednesday, 4th April, 2012, 02:48 PM
By Rechan in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 16Last Post: Wednesday, 21st January, 2009, 02:55 PM
By Mengu in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 2Last Post: Tuesday, 10th June, 2008, 05:21 PM
By Najo in forum Roleplaying Games General DiscussionReplies: 3Last Post: Wednesday, 6th June, 2007, 03:08 AM
By Tatsukun in forum Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, and OSR GamingReplies: 20Last Post: Wednesday, 15th September, 2004, 02:51 PM