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="bogmad" data-source="post: 6022586" data-attributes="member: 6695559"><p>This is exactly what I thought was being said. </p><p>"Talents" would potentially be a part of "backgrounds" as "feats" would be to "specialty."</p><p></p><p>For a base system, balance is a welcome feature, and "siloing" things out makes this easier to implement. </p><p></p><p>You've already described your group of players as wanting different things than a great many D&D players: </p><p></p><p>So it sounds like for <em>your</em> group, leaving out specialties and keeping backgrounds might be a valid option.</p><p></p><p>Like I've said before, the "feats" you want interact wildly differently with rules than the way combat-based feats do, so why <em>not</em> call them something different? Mixing them up and putting them in different modules(backgrounds, specialties, etc) creates imbalance. I'm not even saying completely don't mix them up anymore, but at least let the core idea be that each module primarily speaks to a different pillar. </p><p></p><p>Those with a wildly different playstyle than the majority of D&D players should still be able houserule more complicated combinations of feats, talents, etc to play how they want to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bogmad, post: 6022586, member: 6695559"] This is exactly what I thought was being said. "Talents" would potentially be a part of "backgrounds" as "feats" would be to "specialty." For a base system, balance is a welcome feature, and "siloing" things out makes this easier to implement. You've already described your group of players as wanting different things than a great many D&D players: So it sounds like for [i]your[/i] group, leaving out specialties and keeping backgrounds might be a valid option. Like I've said before, the "feats" you want interact wildly differently with rules than the way combat-based feats do, so why [i]not[/i] call them something different? Mixing them up and putting them in different modules(backgrounds, specialties, etc) creates imbalance. I'm not even saying completely don't mix them up anymore, but at least let the core idea be that each module primarily speaks to a different pillar. Those with a wildly different playstyle than the majority of D&D players should still be able houserule more complicated combinations of feats, talents, etc to play how they want to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
Top