Dwimmerlied
First Post
The article looks good. I'm certainly more intrigued. Buying into a new version will depend, for me, on a few other things I really hope for, but this description looks not only sound, but actually enticing.
D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
Also I really like that they are bringing Fighting Styles back so that every class has a subclass choice mechanic.
This must be viewed together with feats (bundled into specialties or similar) replacing prestige classes and paragon paths.
It doesn't really matter what the mechanic really is or how they call it... the whole point is essentially that of diversifying characters with a progression following non-generic character concepts, opposed to diversifying with small building blocks.
In 3e we had prestige classes for progressive concepts and feats for small building blocks, while in 4e we had paragon paths instead of prestige classes, it's really not bad at all to try something new. And the idea they are trying now (let's hope it works) it sounds like crossing the boundary between progressions and small building blocks, by arranging building blocks into progressions (or alternatively, breaking down progressions into building blocks). This is just great because the amount of flexibility will double, since you can customize your PC by the building blocks, or you can choose a progression, or any mix in between. It still leaves the designer the same very large room for writing splatbooks like in previous editions, and the same room left for the DM to write her own stuff, but it gives players an unprecedented level of freedom (provided their DM allows specific material, of course). It avoids situations where for story reason or for strategic reason you pick a prestige class but you have to clutter your character sheet with abilities you're not interested just because the prestige class is totally unflexible. It allows for two PCs to enter the same specialty (or whatever will be called) let's say Arcane Archer, but make that choice work for both a Fighter and a Wizard because they will be able to swap feats that don't work well for them instead of buying a fixed progression.
But at the same time, subclasses will be a simple way to provide variety within each class. As mentioned by Mike, it's also quite possible to pick one subclass, the simplest or most iconic, and put only that one into Basic by default. Subclasses make every class intrinsically flexible, working like 2e kits. They also have a large potential for designers to create material for supplements and campaign settings, and for DMs for their homebrew world.
This could be a good base rule (IIRC the disadvantage from lack of proficiency cannot be even negated by another advantage). Characters could always be allowed to try, but the disadvantage would make it useful only in emergency situations, because if used on a regular basis it will really yield bad results most of the times.
Overall the new Background concept is even better than before...
I liked the simplicity of Background = 4 skills + 1 trait, but it has its limitations: for once, standardizing to 4 skills means sometimes you have to leave out a fifth or even sixth skill which should would have really made a lot of sense in that background, and other times you have to toss in a skill that is not really needed except for reaching 4. The current packet is still full of backgrounds with unreasonable skills!
Making Backgrounds a "packet lunch" with non-standardized benefits makes them really free from design restrictrions!
This must be viewed together with feats (bundled into specialties or similar) replacing prestige classes and paragon paths.
It doesn't really matter what the mechanic really is or how they call it... the whole point is essentially that of diversifying characters with a progression following non-generic character concepts, opposed to diversifying with small building blocks.
In 3e we had prestige classes for progressive concepts and feats for small building blocks, while in 4e we had paragon paths instead of prestige classes, it's really not bad at all to try something new. And the idea they are trying now (let's hope it works) it sounds like crossing the boundary between progressions and small building blocks, by arranging building blocks into progressions (or alternatively, breaking down progressions into building blocks). This is just great because the amount of flexibility will double, since you can customize your PC by the building blocks, or you can choose a progression, or any mix in between. It still leaves the designer the same very large room for writing splatbooks like in previous editions, and the same room left for the DM to write her own stuff, but it gives players an unprecedented level of freedom (provided their DM allows specific material, of course). It avoids situations where for story reason or for strategic reason you pick a prestige class but you have to clutter your character sheet with abilities you're not interested just because the prestige class is totally unflexible. It allows for two PCs to enter the same specialty (or whatever will be called) let's say Arcane Archer, but make that choice work for both a Fighter and a Wizard because they will be able to swap feats that don't work well for them instead of buying a fixed progression.
But at the same time, subclasses will be a simple way to provide variety within each class. As mentioned by Mike, it's also quite possible to pick one subclass, the simplest or most iconic, and put only that one into Basic by default. Subclasses make every class intrinsically flexible, working like 2e kits. They also have a large potential for designers to create material for supplements and campaign settings, and for DMs for their homebrew world.
This could be a good base rule (IIRC the disadvantage from lack of proficiency cannot be even negated by another advantage). Characters could always be allowed to try, but the disadvantage would make it useful only in emergency situations, because if used on a regular basis it will really yield bad results most of the times.
Overall the new Background concept is even better than before...
I liked the simplicity of Background = 4 skills + 1 trait, but it has its limitations: for once, standardizing to 4 skills means sometimes you have to leave out a fifth or even sixth skill which should would have really made a lot of sense in that background, and other times you have to toss in a skill that is not really needed except for reaching 4. The current packet is still full of backgrounds with unreasonable skills!
Making Backgrounds a "packet lunch" with non-standardized benefits makes them really free from design restrictrions!
Last edited:
Szatany
First Post
Wow, talk about starting a new week.
Feats: Overall I like what I'm reading so far. I think using feats as building blocks and splitting prestige classes and paragon paths into feats is a great idea. It wouldn't be so great if feats were minor, like they used to be. But combined with the fact that feats are getting an upgrade this is a great news. Flexibility in advancing your character will be something unparelled compared to any previous edition. At the same time the option to improve ability scores instead makes it so I don't have to browse through hundreds of feats if I don't want to.
What I don't like comes from the nature of ability modifiers themselves. Adding +1 to an ability score and getting nothing in return because I just hit odd number sucks. I don't know if there's an elegant solution to this, but I know that in my games I'll soften the blow somehow. Maybe grant +1 to ability checks in advance for all who have +1/2 modifier - that's like +1 to skill checks so it's pretty good.
I'm undecided how I want prerequisites of feats to look like. Since prestige classes will be broken down, does it mean we will see big feat trees? Hope not.
Skills: Skills are going optional. Probably a good idea but not really important to me as I always use them. That bit about adjusting DC if you use skills in your game? That bad. That's very bad. What about the principle that players may use different rule sets at the same table? If two characters attempt the same challenge and one uses skill system? DC for him is higher? That's ridiculous. Not to mention that adjusting DCs by itself isn't very good mechanic IMO.
What I'd rather see is a mechanic for skills that's similar to (dis)advantage mechanic. For example, if someone makes a check his skill applies to, and he rolls a natural 1-10, he gets a reroll. If the reroll is 1-10, he has to keep the score. This is better because it doesn't inflate the numbers, it works well with bounded accuracy, it works with (dis)advantage rules, and DM has less math to do.
Likewise, same mechanic would work well with new knowledge checks from backgrounds, and the reverse would work well with proficiency checks.
Backgrounds: Overall I like new backgrounds. They had to change anyway since skills are now optional and I'm guessing backgrounds are still mandatory. Proficiencies are a nice way to put thieves' tools somewhere. I also like that other proficiencies are possible, including (I'm assuming) weapon proficiencies. What I dislike is that without a proficiency you can't make an attempt. I know this is realistic(ish), but I want to play a heroic game where people can do extraordinary things, and I'd like to at least have a sliver of chance when attempting tasks I know nothing about. Because of that I propose using system from above.
If someone makes a check that requires proficiency without having that proficiency, and she rolls a natural 11-20, she must reroll. If the reroll is 11-20, she keeps the score.
Areas of knowledge - a good idea in regard to areas of knowledge, but not the +10 bonus. Better because instead of having a list of broad lore categories and forcing each character into them, we can have much more specific areas, each tailored to a specific background. The bonus is bad in an environment of bounded accuracy, see above for my proposed solution.
Also, why no mention of specialities?
Feats: Overall I like what I'm reading so far. I think using feats as building blocks and splitting prestige classes and paragon paths into feats is a great idea. It wouldn't be so great if feats were minor, like they used to be. But combined with the fact that feats are getting an upgrade this is a great news. Flexibility in advancing your character will be something unparelled compared to any previous edition. At the same time the option to improve ability scores instead makes it so I don't have to browse through hundreds of feats if I don't want to.
What I don't like comes from the nature of ability modifiers themselves. Adding +1 to an ability score and getting nothing in return because I just hit odd number sucks. I don't know if there's an elegant solution to this, but I know that in my games I'll soften the blow somehow. Maybe grant +1 to ability checks in advance for all who have +1/2 modifier - that's like +1 to skill checks so it's pretty good.
I'm undecided how I want prerequisites of feats to look like. Since prestige classes will be broken down, does it mean we will see big feat trees? Hope not.
Skills: Skills are going optional. Probably a good idea but not really important to me as I always use them. That bit about adjusting DC if you use skills in your game? That bad. That's very bad. What about the principle that players may use different rule sets at the same table? If two characters attempt the same challenge and one uses skill system? DC for him is higher? That's ridiculous. Not to mention that adjusting DCs by itself isn't very good mechanic IMO.
What I'd rather see is a mechanic for skills that's similar to (dis)advantage mechanic. For example, if someone makes a check his skill applies to, and he rolls a natural 1-10, he gets a reroll. If the reroll is 1-10, he has to keep the score. This is better because it doesn't inflate the numbers, it works well with bounded accuracy, it works with (dis)advantage rules, and DM has less math to do.
Likewise, same mechanic would work well with new knowledge checks from backgrounds, and the reverse would work well with proficiency checks.
Backgrounds: Overall I like new backgrounds. They had to change anyway since skills are now optional and I'm guessing backgrounds are still mandatory. Proficiencies are a nice way to put thieves' tools somewhere. I also like that other proficiencies are possible, including (I'm assuming) weapon proficiencies. What I dislike is that without a proficiency you can't make an attempt. I know this is realistic(ish), but I want to play a heroic game where people can do extraordinary things, and I'd like to at least have a sliver of chance when attempting tasks I know nothing about. Because of that I propose using system from above.
If someone makes a check that requires proficiency without having that proficiency, and she rolls a natural 11-20, she must reroll. If the reroll is 11-20, she keeps the score.
Areas of knowledge - a good idea in regard to areas of knowledge, but not the +10 bonus. Better because instead of having a list of broad lore categories and forcing each character into them, we can have much more specific areas, each tailored to a specific background. The bonus is bad in an environment of bounded accuracy, see above for my proposed solution.
Also, why no mention of specialities?
Last edited:
Evenglare
Adventurer
I believe there is an elegant solution. To achieve satisfactory level advancement with no dead levels, you really must give a +2 bonus to ability scores, and from that you should probably half the rate of feat gain, and balance those feats towards a +2 bonus instead of a +1 bonus. That's the only way I can possibly see.
Gotta hand it to Mearls for not noodling around in this article. Even some of the vague bits are interestingly vague, rather than just frustratingly so.
At the big picture scale, I think making feats the replacement for prestige classes and paragon paths at least puts them into a reasonably clear neighborhood. More to the point, they are the key features of PCs/PPs, not the little math bits designed to avoid dead levels. This is the one-stop shop for functional wings, mighty telepathy, soul-sucking, magic imbuing, rules-ignoring awesome. My rule of thumb under this premise: if a feat doesn't open up an entirely new way to approach problems it isn't doing its job.
Of course, the feat vs. +1 ability score choice is still tenuous. I'd love it if, in terms of functionality, +1 ability score were a pyramid and not a ziggurat. The most obvious way of doing this however (+1 bonus per +1 score) wreaks havoc with bounded accuracy. Averaged over many choices it is clear a feat would be more appropriately balanced against +1/2 mod increase, but at any given decision point the choice is between useless and +1 mod increase. Terrible. In last week's thread I suggested letting powerful feats raise lower scores, and less powerful feats raise higher ones, which might still work. A simpler rule might be: When you take a feat you can raise an even score by 1. Then the non-feat ability score increase option might be to raise one even score and one odd score, with special rules for the all odd or all even corner cases. (Compared to +1 ability score or feat this would result in higher ability scores, so this would suggest keeping the number of feats in the character progression closer to the 6 end than the 12 end.)
For example, suppose a fighter has 16 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con (and some other scores which we'll pretend don't matter). The first choice will be either a feat or ability score increase.
1. Feat: The character gets a feat and has either (17 14 17) or (16 15 17).
2. +1s. The character has either (17 14 18) or (16 15 18).
In either case there is a valid choice between a feat xor +1 ability score mod.
After the second choice, things look as follows.
1a. Feat->Feat: The character gets a second feat and has (17 15 17).
1b. Feat->+1s: The character still has the first feat and has (18 15 17), (17 15 18), or (17 16 17).
2a. +1s->Feat: The character gains a first feat and has (17 15 18), (17 14 19), or (16 15 19).
2b. +1s->+1s: The character has (18 15 18), (18 14 19), (17 16 18), or (16 16 19).
In any of these cases, the second choice grants either an additional feat xor +1 ability score mod.
Additional choices continue this pattern: each is between a feat and +1 ability mod, no ziggurating (new verb!) in sight. The only possible exception is when all ability scores are even or all are odd. This could be handled in a couple different ways, but it should be a rare occurrence and keep the incentives between feat and +1 intact, breaking the deadlock if possible. My first glance solution is: 1) if all odd a feat simply doesn't grant an ability score increase, 2) if all odd an ability score simply grants a +1 to a single score, 3) if all even a feat acts as normal, 4) if all even an ability score grants +2 to a single score and +1 to a different even one. Only case 1 doesn't break the all same condition (but frankly all odd is not such a bad problem to have) and every single one of these corner case options maintains the feat or +1 mod choice, guaranteeing no ziggurat advancement for any possible combination of ability scores below the cap.
On a different note, I dislike having class specific feat/+1 progressions because some tables might want neither feats nor ability score increases. At those tables the different progressions will mess up balance between characters in the same party. I don't expect to play in such games myself, but still. With a consistent feat progression for characters, ignoring both feats and ability score improvements will affect game balance globally, but it does so in the least disruptive fashion.
I like what he's saying about proficiencies, but not quite as much about skills. I understand exactly why the lore checks are presented as they are, and it even does what they want, but it is inconsistent with other uses of skills. I'm not brimming with better solutions, though, it's one of those situations where the d20 is simply too random for what lore represents. I have the same ambivalence with skills more generally. That is, I want them to be on the same scale as attacks (so I can attack with wit or insight just as I would with a sword) while recognizing that I enjoy fairly random attacks, but want skill training to be qualitatively more reliable when used in typical situations. Capturing all that in a single d20 + modifier is a puzzle to be sure. Maybe we should avoid skill modifiers entirely (or have trained ones progress slowly and automatically like attack bonus), but set a universal DC that determines whether one exceeds one's basic competency? For example, rather than give a +10 on lore checks, just set all lore checks within DC 1-20. A character with basic training in lore always knows basic information, but one that meets the DC gets medium information as well. In many ways this basic level of competency is just what proficiency is meant to capture, but it rolls it into a lightweight skill system that lets one be even more proficient. And like an attack a 1 in a stressful situation could be a fumble (success below normal competency) and a 20 could be success 2 levels above normal competency.
One could approach other skills in the same fashion. For example, in the current packet there are DC 10, 20, and 30 checks suggested for swim. What if all those checks were DC 10, but being trained in a skill determined which result was the baseline (much like a +10 would) without actually fiddling with the numbers. That might make contests more interesting, keep the math of ability checks more-or-less the same whether skills are used or not, keep the flavor of reliability on typical checks, and generally let us keep bounded accuracy intact for skills. Thoughts?
As for classes, I have no objection to the subclass approach in principle.
At the big picture scale, I think making feats the replacement for prestige classes and paragon paths at least puts them into a reasonably clear neighborhood. More to the point, they are the key features of PCs/PPs, not the little math bits designed to avoid dead levels. This is the one-stop shop for functional wings, mighty telepathy, soul-sucking, magic imbuing, rules-ignoring awesome. My rule of thumb under this premise: if a feat doesn't open up an entirely new way to approach problems it isn't doing its job.
Of course, the feat vs. +1 ability score choice is still tenuous. I'd love it if, in terms of functionality, +1 ability score were a pyramid and not a ziggurat. The most obvious way of doing this however (+1 bonus per +1 score) wreaks havoc with bounded accuracy. Averaged over many choices it is clear a feat would be more appropriately balanced against +1/2 mod increase, but at any given decision point the choice is between useless and +1 mod increase. Terrible. In last week's thread I suggested letting powerful feats raise lower scores, and less powerful feats raise higher ones, which might still work. A simpler rule might be: When you take a feat you can raise an even score by 1. Then the non-feat ability score increase option might be to raise one even score and one odd score, with special rules for the all odd or all even corner cases. (Compared to +1 ability score or feat this would result in higher ability scores, so this would suggest keeping the number of feats in the character progression closer to the 6 end than the 12 end.)
For example, suppose a fighter has 16 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con (and some other scores which we'll pretend don't matter). The first choice will be either a feat or ability score increase.
1. Feat: The character gets a feat and has either (17 14 17) or (16 15 17).
2. +1s. The character has either (17 14 18) or (16 15 18).
In either case there is a valid choice between a feat xor +1 ability score mod.
After the second choice, things look as follows.
1a. Feat->Feat: The character gets a second feat and has (17 15 17).
1b. Feat->+1s: The character still has the first feat and has (18 15 17), (17 15 18), or (17 16 17).
2a. +1s->Feat: The character gains a first feat and has (17 15 18), (17 14 19), or (16 15 19).
2b. +1s->+1s: The character has (18 15 18), (18 14 19), (17 16 18), or (16 16 19).
In any of these cases, the second choice grants either an additional feat xor +1 ability score mod.
Additional choices continue this pattern: each is between a feat and +1 ability mod, no ziggurating (new verb!) in sight. The only possible exception is when all ability scores are even or all are odd. This could be handled in a couple different ways, but it should be a rare occurrence and keep the incentives between feat and +1 intact, breaking the deadlock if possible. My first glance solution is: 1) if all odd a feat simply doesn't grant an ability score increase, 2) if all odd an ability score simply grants a +1 to a single score, 3) if all even a feat acts as normal, 4) if all even an ability score grants +2 to a single score and +1 to a different even one. Only case 1 doesn't break the all same condition (but frankly all odd is not such a bad problem to have) and every single one of these corner case options maintains the feat or +1 mod choice, guaranteeing no ziggurat advancement for any possible combination of ability scores below the cap.
On a different note, I dislike having class specific feat/+1 progressions because some tables might want neither feats nor ability score increases. At those tables the different progressions will mess up balance between characters in the same party. I don't expect to play in such games myself, but still. With a consistent feat progression for characters, ignoring both feats and ability score improvements will affect game balance globally, but it does so in the least disruptive fashion.
I like what he's saying about proficiencies, but not quite as much about skills. I understand exactly why the lore checks are presented as they are, and it even does what they want, but it is inconsistent with other uses of skills. I'm not brimming with better solutions, though, it's one of those situations where the d20 is simply too random for what lore represents. I have the same ambivalence with skills more generally. That is, I want them to be on the same scale as attacks (so I can attack with wit or insight just as I would with a sword) while recognizing that I enjoy fairly random attacks, but want skill training to be qualitatively more reliable when used in typical situations. Capturing all that in a single d20 + modifier is a puzzle to be sure. Maybe we should avoid skill modifiers entirely (or have trained ones progress slowly and automatically like attack bonus), but set a universal DC that determines whether one exceeds one's basic competency? For example, rather than give a +10 on lore checks, just set all lore checks within DC 1-20. A character with basic training in lore always knows basic information, but one that meets the DC gets medium information as well. In many ways this basic level of competency is just what proficiency is meant to capture, but it rolls it into a lightweight skill system that lets one be even more proficient. And like an attack a 1 in a stressful situation could be a fumble (success below normal competency) and a 20 could be success 2 levels above normal competency.
One could approach other skills in the same fashion. For example, in the current packet there are DC 10, 20, and 30 checks suggested for swim. What if all those checks were DC 10, but being trained in a skill determined which result was the baseline (much like a +10 would) without actually fiddling with the numbers. That might make contests more interesting, keep the math of ability checks more-or-less the same whether skills are used or not, keep the flavor of reliability on typical checks, and generally let us keep bounded accuracy intact for skills. Thoughts?
As for classes, I have no objection to the subclass approach in principle.
Last edited:
I proposed my own potential solution (which might suck) in the previous post, but I would like to note that the +1 ability check for odd scores introduces a weird situation where the bonus on attacks/saves/damage is different from that on ability checks, and different only some of the time, and for different ability scores, and which ones are different probably change as the game goes on. So it definitely smooths the progression a bit, but I think it is unfortunately a mess at the table. It at least doubles the complexity of the ability mod rules, and maybe more because it depends not just on the number but on what the character is doing. If I put myself in the shoes of a new player with 12 Str, 15 Dex, 16 Con, 17 Int, 9 Wis, 10 Cha figuring out when to use which bonus seems a bit daunting. My eyes, at least, would be glued to my character sheet so I didn't screw up.
Dwimmerlied
First Post
In regards to the suspended game reward of the +1, what if odd ability scores had more currency? They don't need the "+1 to rolls" jump that odd numbers have, as this would shake up the system, but if some meaning could be assigned to the odd values, this would solve the problem.
Last edited:
Szatany
First Post
I agree that i would solve, or at least soften the issue. But what would you assign?
One way would be to free checks from modifieres and use straight ability score, but that will never happen.
Strength has carrying capacity that's based on its score, so you get something for increasing your STR. Other than that, there is nothing else IIRC.
What if each ability score had a minor benefit for each odd value above certain number? Like in 2nd edition you gained resistances to illusion or something (can't remember) if your INT was 17 or higher. I always liked those.
STRENGTH
Score Advantage on:
13+ Arm wrestling
15+ Pushing doors
17+ Lifting gates
19+ Bending bars
DEXTERITY
Score Advantage on:
13+ Catching objects
15+ Squeezing through
17+ Keeping balance on moving vehicles and creatures
19+ ?
CONSTITUTION
Score Advantage on:
13+ Drinking
15+ Holding breath
17+ Saves vs. diseases
19+ no penalties for resurrection
INTELLIGENCE
Score Advantage on:
13+ ?
15+ ?
17+ ?
19+ ?
WISDOM
Score Advantage on:
13+ ?
15+ ?
17+ ?
19+ ?
CHARISMA
Score Advantage on:
13+ lying
15+ seducing
17+ public speaking
19+ ?
Last edited:
Sir Robilar
First Post
Some things I really like in this post, some I find inelegant.
What I like:
- Feats and skills are optional.
- The new backgrounds.
- Proficiencies are back! This makes me happy because I always thought the 2E way of doing this - you either know how to do something or don't - makes more sense for many tasks.
Don't like:
- Groups that play without feats add +1 to Ability scores when otherwise a feat would be gained. Looking at this from a flavor standpoint, I don't understand it. Why is my fighter becoming stronger? I have no problem wrapping my head around the fighter learning a new technique represented by a feat but a mandatory ability increase just rings false. Considering the question that the designer's used to ask at the beginning of the playtest: Does it feel right? No. The groups I'd expect would want to play without feats are probably gamers that enjoy the simple old school way of handling things. What they get with Mearl's proposal is an ability increase system that feels like 4e's system of automatic increases. Not a good match, in my opinion.
I'd prefer it if the designers acknowledged that the feat system is something a group choses, not individual players at the table. This way the power level of groups that use feats doesn't have to match the power level of groups that don't use them. So a group without the feat system wouldn't need any replacement, they'd get nothing instead of a feat, which sounds right because they want to play without feats. The DM should find it easy to adjust challenges for groups with and without feats. Maybe balance it along the lines of "for groups with feats, add +1 to the challenge rating". It just feels cumbersome to - when playing without feats - get a replacement for something you don't want to use. Also, the flavor is off.
- Training in Knowledge gives you a +10 to the check. Don't like this. I'd prefer if being untrained in an area of knowledge meant you roll a d10 for the check instead of a d20. This would keep the higher DCs in the line with all other DCs. Considering the Waterdeep example, things everyone would have a chance to know would have a DC of 5, things only a few of the common folk know would be 10, whereas sage knowledge would be 15 or 20.
What I like:
- Feats and skills are optional.
- The new backgrounds.
- Proficiencies are back! This makes me happy because I always thought the 2E way of doing this - you either know how to do something or don't - makes more sense for many tasks.
Don't like:
- Groups that play without feats add +1 to Ability scores when otherwise a feat would be gained. Looking at this from a flavor standpoint, I don't understand it. Why is my fighter becoming stronger? I have no problem wrapping my head around the fighter learning a new technique represented by a feat but a mandatory ability increase just rings false. Considering the question that the designer's used to ask at the beginning of the playtest: Does it feel right? No. The groups I'd expect would want to play without feats are probably gamers that enjoy the simple old school way of handling things. What they get with Mearl's proposal is an ability increase system that feels like 4e's system of automatic increases. Not a good match, in my opinion.
I'd prefer it if the designers acknowledged that the feat system is something a group choses, not individual players at the table. This way the power level of groups that use feats doesn't have to match the power level of groups that don't use them. So a group without the feat system wouldn't need any replacement, they'd get nothing instead of a feat, which sounds right because they want to play without feats. The DM should find it easy to adjust challenges for groups with and without feats. Maybe balance it along the lines of "for groups with feats, add +1 to the challenge rating". It just feels cumbersome to - when playing without feats - get a replacement for something you don't want to use. Also, the flavor is off.
- Training in Knowledge gives you a +10 to the check. Don't like this. I'd prefer if being untrained in an area of knowledge meant you roll a d10 for the check instead of a d20. This would keep the higher DCs in the line with all other DCs. Considering the Waterdeep example, things everyone would have a chance to know would have a DC of 5, things only a few of the common folk know would be 10, whereas sage knowledge would be 15 or 20.
Szatany
First Post
You sooo chose the wrong game to make this complaint
First of all, this is a wrong example, because it makes total sense that a fighter would become stronger over the course of adventures. He's using his muscles all the time.
Now, if you ask why would a fighter become more charismatic even if he didn't open his mouth for the last 3 levels?
And the answer is: The whole game is structured like that, and this is not restricted to ability scores. Why characters gain new abilities through feats or class even if they never practiced those abilities? Why characters get better at skills even those they never used? Why wizards get better attack bonus with weapon, even those who never touched a sword in their life?
If you play a level based game (as opposed to Gurps), this is how it is, and there's no point IMO in trying to change that.
Similar Threads
