Legends and Lore: Uber Feats eat Prestige classes and Paragon Paths or give +1 to ability

[Szatany]

The feats are the new king
it seems.

Very interesting article. I like the idea behind it because it suggests there's gonna be a lot (A LOT) of streamlining of rules from where we are now.
Looks like feats will be fewer but much more powerful. What I'm taking from this article is this:
- Since a feat now has to equal +1 ASI (ability score increase), you can say goodbye to things like +1 HP/level or two extra skills. This also puts a very very nice leash on designers of future supplements. Feats bloat might still exist, but it will be reigned in considerably at the very least.
- For each archtype, there will be one or two feats. Two would be better. For example, one feat available from 1st level that gives you all benefits you need to be a good two-weapon fighter (will probably combine two or three existing feats). And another feat that requires the first one and 11th level, that makes you a 2W fighting monster.
- Since feats are now exchangeable with ASI, IMO automatic ASI per 4 levels should be gone.
- If feats are stronger and less common (I'm assuming), what will happen to specialities? Are they gone as wel
- Same as above, I don't think we will see any prestige or paragon classes under this system. Each such class will be instead represented by two or three feats.
- Uneven feat distribution among various classes means that feats will be written into class tables. They seem to be trying to take the classless table of benefits per levels away.

My first reaction to this is that I don't like it, mainly the part about different classes have different feat progression rates, basically making feats mandatory... Blah.

It think feats still are optional, but the article could have worded it better. The way I see it, at specific levels a player has to choose between either a feat or a +1 ASI.
...which creates a problem. If characters get feats at various rates, they will improve ability scores at various rates.
I'm calling it now: The criterium by which designers decide which class gets how many feats will be MAD. The more high ability scoress a class needs to be effective, the more feats it will have.

Pity they didn't show us an examplary feat. I'm super curious how they change metamagic for example (currently it totally sucks).

 

[Bluenose]

So they're going to make some feats which are pretty much +1 to an ability and some which are equivalent to gaining class abilities in a prestige class. Is that what I'm reading? Ah, trap options and pre-requisites, there was such unanimous agreement that they were a great thing.

I'll be really interested to see the feats which give abilities as useful as 9th level spells, mind you. After all, if Fighters are going to get a lot more feats than Wizards, and some feats are going to be more powerful than others, that is a logical conclusion. At least they won't have to think of manoeuvres to do the same thing this way.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I will have to see it in action, but this sounds pretty sharp to me. I just wish they would call it something other than feats, but that is my 3rd edition PTSD talking. If they could roll all the kits, backgrounds and specialties in with this mechanic as well, I would be even happier.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There are things I like, and things I don't here.

At first I liked the idea of (presumably) getting rid of automatic ability score increases - I don't see a need for them in the game. However, by placing those increases into optional feats, it seems as though you're going to be spending at least three feats on getting your starting 17 up to 20 - it's a limit, but a +5 instead of a +4 is probably significant enough. 1 feat for an 18 is going to be a must buy. Further, if you select a sub-optimal combination of race and class, you'll have to pay an additional feat to catch up with alternative builds. Maybe if there was some limit on this like.. you must have an ability score below a certain value, and have a certain level, to even out progression. Sounds messy though.

At first I also liked the idea of giving different classes different rates of feat acquisition - a return to the 2E WP/NWP progressions I suppose. But then, if you get more, you can increase your ability scores more than another class. Maybe that means you need more ability scores? That's completely not clear to me. Does it make feats mandatory - well, I suppose you could rule that you increase ability scores instead in the simple game, but then why can a Fighter increase his Int at a faster rate than a Wizard?

They just still don't know what they want to do with feats, so they've decided they will do everything. I don't think this will work. I think the many things feats are trying to do would be better in separate categories - perhaps that's what we'll see with combat feats and skill tricks, but then how can they be balanced as the same resource? Then I think, isn't it better to tie the acquisition of these features to something you get from a class, rather than the class itself? How about if you got a combat feat every time you increased your weapon attack modifier? How about if skills worked on a points system again, with Rogues getting more than everyone else, and you got a skill feat when you got a skill to a certain level? How about you get a metamagic feat every time you increased you spell attack modifier? I'm thinking heavily with multiclassing in mind because in the very first packet it seemed like you would acquire aspects of other classes through feats, but we've moved away from that and towards the stated goal of 3E style multiclassing, so now you can just take a level to gain the relevant features.

It's messy and circular and I think it's worth stepping back and seeing if there's a better way to do character customisation. Clearly they don't want it all within your class, so does multiclassing handle it sufficiently? If not, what will feats do? Look at something like Skyrim, where you get a point to spend every level on something to customise your character, based on how you've developed your skills. Sure, it's a classless system, but classes are already sharing features, so can't we find something that'll work like that?

 

[Falling Icicle]

Also I can't believe that Mearls is so overlooking the reason why his Sorcerer friend couldn't find a feat. That clearly was not because of the feat mechanics but simply because there were no feats in core 3e interesting enough for Sorcerers. IOW, core 3e did not have enough feats. I know that people complain that there were too many feats in 3e, and too many of them were garbage or broken, but that was only after you factor in dozens of supplements. The core 3e had too many combat feats, and too few non-combat feats.

I was thinking the exact same thing. He mentioned Toughness, but that feat was notorious for being a horrible, trap-choice feat. He mentioned how metamagics were useless at 1st level, but the metamagics in Next don't have that issue, since they aren't tied to spell levels. A lot of the feats in 3.x were just... bleh. THAT was the problem.

Still, I agree that giving people an option to exchange their feats for something else is a good idea. Those who want feats can have them and those who don't can do without them but still be just as powerful. I don't know about giving ability score increases, though. It seems like ability scores are high enough. I wonder if this is going to replace the normal ability score gains from leveling or be in addition to it.

I actually like the idea of having prestige classes via feats. It avoids most of the pitfalls of the 3.x multiclassing method and lets them just apply on top of your character class rather than replacing it. Most of the prestige classes I took were just because I wanted a few of the cool abilities they had anyway.

What I don't like in the article are the feats with levels, and higher level feats being better than lower level ones. Feats should just be feats, IMO.

Just a side thought though: how many feats does this mean the monk's perfect self ability is worth, or the human +1 to everything for that matter? I really hope this means they're going to change those.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Oh, the other thing I dislike is fighters and rogues getting feats at a different rate than other classes. Why not just give them bonus feats instead?

 

[Li Shenron]

Still, I agree that giving people an option to exchange their feats for something else is a good idea. Those who want feats can have them and those who don't can do without them but still be just as powerful.

Now I understand better what they're looking after...

I have been all this year under the impression that they wanted feats to be optional in the sense that the DM/group can decide to use the feat system or ignore it completely.

Instead they want feats to be optional on a player basis: the DM/group has to use the feat system anyway, it cannot be ignored, but each player who doesn't want feats can opt for +1 bonus to an ability score.

That is with the caveat that Fighters and Rogues can't just ignore feats, however feats do what maneuvers and skill tricks did before, and they couldn't ignore those either... In a way, this makes Fighters and Rogues more flexible because they can choose also other feats, unless they do the stupid thing of a fixed list of bonus feats for each class to sort through every time: at least they could say that fighter bonus feats have to be combat feats, but I hope no fixed list, a label works so much better.

OTOH the same thing could have been accomplished before when maneuvers were maneuvers and not feats, and skill tricks were skill tricks and not feats: all they needed was a line saying "a Fighter can opt to pick a feat instead of a maneuver" and same for the Rogue (this was already the case for 3e Rogue's special abilities by the way).

I don't know about giving ability score increases, though. It seems like ability scores are high enough. I wonder if this is going to replace the normal ability score gains from leveling or be in addition to it.

Removing the +1/4 levels would be the very least they could do! I really think there are WAY too many ability score increases. Why don't they bring back Bull Strength's spells while they are at it?

Just a side thought though: how many feats does this mean the monk's perfect self ability is worth, or the human +1 to everything for that matter? I really hope this means they're going to change those.

Well at this point they could give the Human just a few bonus feats

I've been saying give the Human race bonus skills and feats since the first time we got character creation rules, and everybody criticized me on the ground that "but feats and skills are optional!". Well as a whole they aren't anymore so from now on feats can be used as a placeholder for a lot of things, hence why not using them for Human race?

Oh, the other thing I dislike is fighters and rogues getting feats at a different rate than other classes. Why not just give them bonus feats instead?

That would at least have one benefit: that the group as a whole can decide "no feats except bonus feats" so that only the Fighter and Rogue will ever have to think about feats at all.

All in all... if they remove the +1 to 2 ability scores every 4 levels to keep down the numbers, and if they rewrite the Human race with bonus feats instead of ability score increases, then it starts to look better for me.

 

[jadrax]

Yeah, I am petty firmly in the Do Not Want camp on this one.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It'll be great to playtest it. I am fond of the idea of feats that are more notable and less fiddly, but I'm not sure about rogues and fighters getting "more customization" than other classes, and the +1 ASI seems a little kludgy. It might suck to lose some granularity, too -- feats that are "upgrade a previous feat" seem like they might not be as appealing here. But that might be a good thing, too...make sure that upgrades are BIG upgrades. There's also a bit of a potential issue with feats as class features...

Curious. Certainly a bold choice. Looking forward to seeing it in action.

 

[Raith5]

They just still don't know what they want to do with feats, so they've decided they will do everything. I don't think this will work. I think the many things feats are trying to do would be better in separate categories - perhaps that's what we'll see with combat feats and skill tricks, but then how can they be balanced as the same resource? Then I think, isn't it better to tie the acquisition of these features to something you get from a class, rather than the class itself? How about if you got a combat feat every time you increased your weapon attack modifier? How about if skills worked on a points system again, with Rogues getting more than everyone else, and you got a skill feat when you got a skill to a certain level? How about you get a metamagic feat every time you increased you spell attack modifier? I'm thinking heavily with multiclassing in mind because in the very first packet it seemed like you would acquire aspects of other classes through feats, but we've moved away from that and towards the stated goal of 3E style multiclassing, so now you can just take a level to gain the relevant features.

It's messy and circular and I think it's worth stepping back and seeing if there's a better way to do character customisation. Clearly they don't want it all within your class, so does multiclassing handle it sufficiently? If not, what will feats do? Look at something like Skyrim, where you get a point to spend every level on something to customise your character, based on how you've developed your skills. Sure, it's a classless system, but classes are already sharing features, so can't we find something that'll work like that?

I think this nails the issue for me. I dont like feats being only for some types of classes. I really like the issue of feats to work from an organic point of view in terms of customisation. You should be able to specialize with your tools (weapons/wands/thief tools) a bit, strengthen your abilities a bit, work of things outside your class/background so that you can express the archetype/realize your character. That's the bottom line. That why we play the game, to develop and grow an idea expressed as a character.

FWIW I think Skyrim did a really good job for a computer game to enable meaningful choices each time you leveled up because the feats were all quite equal, had established prerequisites - so the choice came down to the basic question: what idea am I trying to express here. Whereas 3rd and 4th ed D&D had too many feats which varied ridiculously in power and so many were extremely narrow (I always loved the feat in 3rd or 4th ed which have flail users +2 to hit against enemies holding a shield: that is just silly).