D&D (2024) One D&D Playtest Expert Classes survey is up! Update! Now due Nov 23rd.

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.

Yep, and it’s pretty clear that there is no incompatibility between the two designs. You get one set of ASIs at chargen. The only issue is it makes the Tasha’s option for floating ASI redundant.

The hurdle I need them to clear to keep me buying D&D is that Tasha’s and Xanathar’s and MotM don’t become obsolete, and the setting books stay compatible with the current rules, even if they differ stylistically.

 

[rules.mechanic]

I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.

True, so there is hope!

 

[Yaarel]

I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)

When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party.

Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!

In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.

Have one list for Spells. Have a separate list for Rituals.

Rituals dont use spell slots, they take minutes to perform, fulfill different purposes, are mainly for the exploration pillar, and belong to a separate part of the game engine.

Use any Mental Ability Check to determine the success of a ritual.

Let noncaster Classes perform rituals too. If a Fighter finds a scroll with instructions for a Ritual, no problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.

Have one list for Spells. Have a separate list for Rituals.

Rituals dont use spell slots, they take minutes to perform, fulfill different purposes, are mainly for the exploration pillar, and belong to a separate part of the game engine.

Use any Mental Ability Check to determine the success of a ritual.

Let noncaster Classes perform rituals too. If a Fighter finds a scroll with instructions for a Ritual, no problem.

I think this is a flawed way of approaching things & that it causes caster feats to often be unappealingly bland. Rather than making a ritual caster feat that appeals to casters who have spell slots & likely a selection of ritual spells of their own the ritual caster feat is designed primarily for "what if a noncaster wants rituals" first last & only. That could be solved & make ritual caster a plausibly interesting feat choice if it allowed the ritual book to scribe first level rituals or rituals of any spell level the caster has slots provided the ritual is from the selected list... but it doesn't consider things like that so it's just bland for everyone.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I haven't playtested any of this so I left most questions with the Not Sure option. I took the survey just so I could write this:

Why is there a choice between a feat and an ASI? Why not make allow PCs to take both as independent features? Combining them to me leads to two problems:

• Game designers now have to consider balancing a feat against an ASI on top of all other design considerations
• Players now have to choose between a mechanically beneficial ASI and an interesting feat

Also, a feat every four levels seems too infrequent. Actually, that's another benefit of separating ASIs from feats: you don't have to constrain desired feat progression by the desired ASI progression.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I haven't playtested any of this so I left most questions with the Not Sure option. I took the survey just so I could write this:

The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.

As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.

 

[Horwath]

The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.

As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.

Now they are making all feats basically half feats with +1 ASI.

just split those in two and have a feat slot tied to character advancement, not a class feature.
feats at levels:
1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 and 19.
and to fill up character levels, at levels 3,5,7 and 9 you gain a skill proficiency or combination of 3 languages, tools or weapons.
at levels 11,13,15 and 17 can be expertise for all characters, as at levels 11+ everyone should be expert in a few things.
"expert" classes will still have 4 or 6 expertise before that level so they will not be overshadowed by this.

classes can then get their "bonus" feats at certain levels, and as those feat will be at "half-feat" power level, they can be more frequent too.

fighter could get 4 slots instead of current two at levels 6&14.
maybe at levels 3,7,9 and 13??
rogue can have bonus feats at levels 5 and 9, or similar.

OFC, any of those feat slots can be used to gain +1 ASI instead so non-feat groups can have their game without feats.
Except level 1 feat slot.

Edit:
lvl 20 moved to 19th level so 20th level can be opened for Epic Boon.
No expertise at 19th level

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.

As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.

This assumes that they are leaning into having feats be mandatory. Which is the impression I get from having a Background grant a Feat (granted that this is just a playtest thing).

If they maintain status quo, though, then my concept makes PCs at tables which allow feats more powerful. But that is a power upgrade that targets all PCs equally. Which is a minimal adjustment for the DM... just throw more monsters, etc. to adjust for the increased party power level.

But it does seem (to me anyway) that they are implementing feats as mandatory.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.

As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.

Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.

The downside of separating them is what I outlined in my previous post. To me, that is a much smaller problem for the game designers to deal with than the ones that fall out of combining feats and ASIs. Putting the two together creates a very weird design rigidity that will cause them issues now and more down the road.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.

The downside of separating them is what I outlined in my previous post. To me, that is a much smaller problem for the game designers to deal with than the ones that fall out of combining feats and ASIs. Putting the two together creates a very weird design rigidity that will cause them issues now and more down the road.

If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs. Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?

More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs. Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly. Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.