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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6024306" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>Oh, okay.</p><p></p><p>Yep, this looks like where we diverge. I'm really not on board with having a "less-than-stellar" non-combat section compared to a combat section. In my experience, it's a lot easier to design for combat. Why? I don't know. That's a good question. So, what I'm asking for isn't easy.</p><p></p><p>Want to know an easy way? Make them all feats, and label them appropriately. You can say "only combat feats" and I can pick and choose from both. Again, win/win, in my eyes.</p><p></p><p>Now, I think I'll probably hear "...shouldn't have to sacrifice combat to RP..." or something along those lines. Well, people have said "you can just tell your players to grab two backgrounds! Done!" Well, why wouldn't you just say "all your feats are normal, and you get a non-combat feat once every 3 levels" or whatever? Seems just as easy as what's been suggested to me.</p><p></p><p>Really, though, if they just put the two on different tracks that you acquired at the same rate, with clear optional rules on how to swap them (and the consequences of those actions), wouldn't that work just fine for most groups? Where's the objection to that style? And, if there is none inherently, couldn't you design the game with that in mind?</p><p></p><p>I get that it's easier said than done. I know, I've designed my RPG. And revised it. And Revised it. And repeat. And then tweaked it. And again. And again. It's a hard process. But, it's a workable process, and having a lot more brainpower working on it over there is bound to speed it up. I think they can pull off the dual-track progression. And, if there's no inherent reason to object to it, why not express preference for it? I mean, I get the "not if it's overall bad for the game" feeling, but, that's true for every aspect of the game design process, isn't it? As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6024306, member: 6668292"] Oh, okay. Yep, this looks like where we diverge. I'm really not on board with having a "less-than-stellar" non-combat section compared to a combat section. In my experience, it's a lot easier to design for combat. Why? I don't know. That's a good question. So, what I'm asking for isn't easy. Want to know an easy way? Make them all feats, and label them appropriately. You can say "only combat feats" and I can pick and choose from both. Again, win/win, in my eyes. Now, I think I'll probably hear "...shouldn't have to sacrifice combat to RP..." or something along those lines. Well, people have said "you can just tell your players to grab two backgrounds! Done!" Well, why wouldn't you just say "all your feats are normal, and you get a non-combat feat once every 3 levels" or whatever? Seems just as easy as what's been suggested to me. Really, though, if they just put the two on different tracks that you acquired at the same rate, with clear optional rules on how to swap them (and the consequences of those actions), wouldn't that work just fine for most groups? Where's the objection to that style? And, if there is none inherently, couldn't you design the game with that in mind? I get that it's easier said than done. I know, I've designed my RPG. And revised it. And Revised it. And repeat. And then tweaked it. And again. And again. It's a hard process. But, it's a workable process, and having a lot more brainpower working on it over there is bound to speed it up. I think they can pull off the dual-track progression. And, if there's no inherent reason to object to it, why not express preference for it? I mean, I get the "not if it's overall bad for the game" feeling, but, that's true for every aspect of the game design process, isn't it? As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
Top