Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5760940" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>I'd rather that "feats" be radically restricted and morphed into non-adventuring abilities that a character might possess but many would not. This would include crafting abilities, language abilities, etc. If you take the "Blacksmith" feat, then you get to use some ability score and/or more general skill to do Blacksmith work. If in doing all that, they want to rename the thing into something better than "feats", fine.</p><p> </p><p>In 3E, "Track" was the good feat, and about the only one they killed. Go figure. "Swim" could let your Athletics ability pertain to swimming. And so on. They didn't like this design because people had to pay a feat to do what many characters should be able to do. But players didn't like that, because there were so many critical things they needed the feats for. Move all that critical stuff into class abilities or some other construct, and keep feats for the less critical things. Then players will be happy to pick the things that matter to them. And if in a given campaign the players want more or less of them, go ahead--it isn't a big balance issue now.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Maybe</strong> armor and weapon proficiencies could stay in feats, but I can't think of anything else that affects combat that should be that binary.</p><p> </p><p>So in one sense I agree that "feats" would be removed, but I think there is still a useful design space for, "A character either has this thing or he doesn't. Many don't have it."</p><p> </p><p>In the simple version of the game, every adventurer would be assumed to have a certain preset number of these--the ability to swim, speak an extra language or three, maybe the ability to track. For a more complex character/campaign, you can keep the default list, swap one or two, or go full custom. It's up to you. In this way, "feats" become as much about campaign customization as character tweaking. Want to play a game where everyone plays an instrument in a traveling minstril show? Every character takes "Play Instrument", and the bard PC becomes band leader. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p><p> </p><p>The feat list wouldn't be very long, and would hardly expand at all after the core rules were established. But I see this as a feature, not a bug. Every feat added lowers the value of the previous set, if only slightly. So get a good set and leave it alone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5760940, member: 54877"] I'd rather that "feats" be radically restricted and morphed into non-adventuring abilities that a character might possess but many would not. This would include crafting abilities, language abilities, etc. If you take the "Blacksmith" feat, then you get to use some ability score and/or more general skill to do Blacksmith work. If in doing all that, they want to rename the thing into something better than "feats", fine. In 3E, "Track" was the good feat, and about the only one they killed. Go figure. "Swim" could let your Athletics ability pertain to swimming. And so on. They didn't like this design because people had to pay a feat to do what many characters should be able to do. But players didn't like that, because there were so many critical things they needed the feats for. Move all that critical stuff into class abilities or some other construct, and keep feats for the less critical things. Then players will be happy to pick the things that matter to them. And if in a given campaign the players want more or less of them, go ahead--it isn't a big balance issue now. [B]Maybe[/B] armor and weapon proficiencies could stay in feats, but I can't think of anything else that affects combat that should be that binary. So in one sense I agree that "feats" would be removed, but I think there is still a useful design space for, "A character either has this thing or he doesn't. Many don't have it." In the simple version of the game, every adventurer would be assumed to have a certain preset number of these--the ability to swim, speak an extra language or three, maybe the ability to track. For a more complex character/campaign, you can keep the default list, swap one or two, or go full custom. It's up to you. In this way, "feats" become as much about campaign customization as character tweaking. Want to play a game where everyone plays an instrument in a traveling minstril show? Every character takes "Play Instrument", and the bard PC becomes band leader. :cool: The feat list wouldn't be very long, and would hardly expand at all after the core rules were established. But I see this as a feature, not a bug. Every feat added lowers the value of the previous set, if only slightly. So get a good set and leave it alone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Dear Mike & Monte
Top