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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
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="thewok" data-source="post: 6022581" data-attributes="member: 60907"><p>Just something I want to point out that seems contradictory to me, and it's one problem I have with Next as it currently stands. This is not really about feats, but your post serves as a convenient stepping-off point for me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Emphasis mine. I agree with this sentiment. Not so much that all feats must relate to combat, but that your background, skills, etc. shouldn't cause you to sacrifice combat capability.</p><p></p><p>That said, the betterment of skills at the cost of combat capability is a core assumption of the rogue class. Rogues are built for skill use, and their combat capabilities suffer because of it. I loathe this philosophy with every fiber of my being.</p><p></p><p>Now, I am fine with the Fighter having a better to-hit bonus that the Rogue. The Fighter is assumed to have formal and practical training in combat, while the rogue is assumed to have only practical. And, I really need to see the Attack bonus progression over the classes' lifetimes in order to really make a final decision. But the projections for the progression put the rogue (everyone really) way below the Fighter in to-hit bonuses.</p><p></p><p>In 3E, this made sense, as Fighters were meant to sacrifice BAB in order to do other things, like with Power Attack. Expertise dice serve that function now, and the vast increase of attack bonus over every other class needs to be toned down a lot.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Thug gets the ability to have advantage every round, so long as two allies are adjacent to his target. I actually would rather see a return of flanking, with sneak attack triggering off of that, divorced from Advantage. Bring Sneak attack damage down a lot, but make it in line with a fighter's possible damage. Then, give each scheme some form of bonus that triggers off of Advantage: Backstab for thieves, maybe a form of immobilization (called Hamstring?) or a stun for Thugs. Then, let them decide whether or not to go for Advantage every round or not.</p><p></p><p>If the thief ever feels that he needs to hide every other round just so he can sneak attack, then I think the mechanic fails to be worthwhile. You'll just see Thieves hiding one round, then attacking the next. It's boring, and it's unreliable.</p><p></p><p>I think Advantage as a mechanic really needs to be equally desirable to everyone; it's very powerful. I'd rather not see a core assumption of a class like Sneak Attack be coupled with a mechanic that reads like it should be somewhat uncommon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thewok, post: 6022581, member: 60907"] Just something I want to point out that seems contradictory to me, and it's one problem I have with Next as it currently stands. This is not really about feats, but your post serves as a convenient stepping-off point for me. Emphasis mine. I agree with this sentiment. Not so much that all feats must relate to combat, but that your background, skills, etc. shouldn't cause you to sacrifice combat capability. That said, the betterment of skills at the cost of combat capability is a core assumption of the rogue class. Rogues are built for skill use, and their combat capabilities suffer because of it. I loathe this philosophy with every fiber of my being. Now, I am fine with the Fighter having a better to-hit bonus that the Rogue. The Fighter is assumed to have formal and practical training in combat, while the rogue is assumed to have only practical. And, I really need to see the Attack bonus progression over the classes' lifetimes in order to really make a final decision. But the projections for the progression put the rogue (everyone really) way below the Fighter in to-hit bonuses. In 3E, this made sense, as Fighters were meant to sacrifice BAB in order to do other things, like with Power Attack. Expertise dice serve that function now, and the vast increase of attack bonus over every other class needs to be toned down a lot. The Thug gets the ability to have advantage every round, so long as two allies are adjacent to his target. I actually would rather see a return of flanking, with sneak attack triggering off of that, divorced from Advantage. Bring Sneak attack damage down a lot, but make it in line with a fighter's possible damage. Then, give each scheme some form of bonus that triggers off of Advantage: Backstab for thieves, maybe a form of immobilization (called Hamstring?) or a stun for Thugs. Then, let them decide whether or not to go for Advantage every round or not. If the thief ever feels that he needs to hide every other round just so he can sneak attack, then I think the mechanic fails to be worthwhile. You'll just see Thieves hiding one round, then attacking the next. It's boring, and it's unreliable. I think Advantage as a mechanic really needs to be equally desirable to everyone; it's very powerful. I'd rather not see a core assumption of a class like Sneak Attack be coupled with a mechanic that reads like it should be somewhat uncommon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
Top