Rule of the Three (1st of May)

[gweinel]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 05/01/2012)

So we have
i) theme - feats
ii) rogue skills
iii) monster advancement

Reading the first question i have to say that i become a too disappointed. Having the themes to be just a feat delivery system actually makes these to me useless. So, the thing that they give us is advancement concepts in three - four feats? ppfff

 

[Cobalt Meridian]

As someone who thinks that feat bloat is one of the bigger problems with previous editions I actually like this. As a DM or a player I'll just have to know the feats that are included in the themes in use rather than having to be hit with the whole "system mastery" elements of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

As someone who has been hoping that feats were going to be at most an optional tack-on, and preferably go away completely, the answer to question 1 comes as a major disappointment.

The presence of feats all but ensures the presence of lots of other things I think are bad for the game: character build as a game unto itself, system mastery as a game unto itself, character optimization as a game unto itself, and the irresistible temptation for the publishers to bloat the game with more and more feats as time goes on.

I had hopes for themes, but as fluff only.

Sigh.

Lan-"already wondering what the knock-on effects would be of removing feats from 5e"-efan

 

[Incenjucar]

They really, really, REALLY need to not call these feat packages "themes." It's like calling a wizard with a particular spell list a "kit."

 

[tlantl]

Reading the first question i have to say that i become a too disappointed. Having the themes to be just a feat delivery system actually makes these to me useless. So, the thing that they give us is advancement concepts in three - four feats? ppfff

I'm pretty sure this was said once or twice before. Pretty clearly in fact.

Backgrounds are where your skills are found and themes are where your feats are found. if you don't like the prepackaged stuff trade out the ones you don't want for the ones you do.

The only thing that is vague about the system besides the number of feats involved, and how often they increase, and what it is they do any way, is the part about fleshing out your character.

We need to see the feats and skills. Until then all we can do is guess about what they bring to the table.

 

[Serendipity]

Non-optional feats. Pfft. I also was hoping for feats to be gone/optional. IMO, what is gained is not worth the consequences of having them in in the first place.
I wonder how (or if) the game will play if one rips the whole feat-er, THEME system out.

 

[Incenjucar]

If you don't want to use feats, don't use feats, and then just reduce the difficulty of the monsters you face. If they're equally applied to all classes then it should be easy enough to figure out the sort of boost they give.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Non-optional feats. Pfft. I also was hoping for feats to be gone/optional.

Themes will be optional, and there will be plenty of themes that are not complicated.

If you want to play a simple, streamlined character, we want to provide plenty of simple, streamlined feats for you to use.

...And, as with backgrounds, a DM might decide he or she doesn’t want to mess with feats and prefers something very old school. If so, the fights might be a touch harder, but you can play the game just fine without them.

 

[hafrogman]

I think the point is less to have feats that are there or not, but rather allow DMs who don't want to allow customization into their games to fix every class with it's default theme and end up with a character who is no more complex or different than a 1st or 2nd ed character.

Fighters get weapon specialization
Rogues get backstab
Wizards get familiars
Clerics get turn undead
Rangers get two-weapon fighting (or perhaps giant slaying if you're 1e)
Etc. etc. etc.

If the players don't get to choose, the DM only need to be familiar with a very small range of abilities and the default options represent classical ability sets, does it really matter if they call them 'feats'? I expect that when you don't want themes or feats, they don't cease to exist, they just fade completely into the background.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As a person who began hating feats, I am curious to see, how exactly feats are handled in 5e.
Feats seem to have a bigger impact than in 3e in 4e. Although, after essentials, most feats are indeed meaningful.
If feats are designed in such a way, that they have a big impact. Its exactly the opposite road as feats in the initial 4e release.