D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[Szatany]

Hmm. How about feats with scaling benefits that unlock at odd ability score thresholds? Creates a tension between 3 choices.

1) Increase an ability score from odd to even, and gain a +1 to many relevant rolls.
2) Increase an ability from even to odd, and unlock benefits of previous feats, as well as be halfway to another another ability modifier increase.
3) Gain a new feat, and gain new abilities.

I thought about that, but that introduces too much complexity where it's not necessary. Also, it would not fit each and every feat, which in turn would produce some artifical results.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

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.

I think (though might be completely wrong), one of the older editions granted a character with 19 con the ability to regenerate. That's freaking cool.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought about that, but that introduces too much complexity where it's not necessary. Also, it would not fit each and every feat, which in turn would produce some artifical results.

Aren't you the guy who wrote the "Ultimate Classes" on the Wizards boards back in the day? And you're worried about adding on complexity?

 

[Szatany]

Aren't you the guy who wrote the "Ultimate Classes" on the Wizards boards back in the day? And you're worried about adding on complexity?

Yes that's me. A lot has changed since then Now I value simplicity a great deal more.
Also, here I'm trying to come up with ideas that would be appealing to broad group of players. Ultimate classes were for "system masters" bored with the original game.

it was in 2004, my god how time flies.

 

[Siberys]

This is the /first/ L&L where I didn't once find myself shaking my head at something he said. I'm pleasantly surprised.

I disagree with the "1 feat = +1 to ability scores" bit. If not for legacy reasons, I'd get rid of ability scores and switch to modifiers only. +1 to Strength Mod is easier to design around than +1 to Strength Score. Otherwise I found the feat section well thought out.

(As an aside; I've considered doing this in my 4e games, after a fashion. Dropping feats and replacing them with a +1/2 level bonus to damage, like Gamma World. I've instead opted for a "restricted format" where a large chunk of feats are simply disallowed, but it's an option I've had sitting at the back of my head for a while.)

With the skill DC issue, they /really/ need to make that clear in the 'Skill Module', but otherwise I'm okay with it. I like the "Areas/Proficiencies/Benefits" set up; I might co-opt this for a modified skill system in my 4e games.

I like the fighter "traditions". Built right, that could add a lot of customizability without adding a lot of rules overhead.

I'm still not sold on 5e - the math's still too out-of-whack at the moment - but this is the first thing in over a year that's made me feel positive about the system. Kudos.

EDIT: I think I figured out what made me like this article as much as I did. Previous articles left me feeling like they didn't have a handle on the math behind the game, or the real consequences of design choices they're making. The feat section of that article, though, was very clear about the results of various design choices they might make. It was positively /lucid/ . That's what I expect to hear from Mearls. That's one of the main things I liked about 4e - how mechanically transparent and /solid/ it is - and if they can bring that forward to 5e, they'll have a much easier time selling me.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought about that, but that introduces too much complexity where it's not necessary. Also, it would not fit each and every feat, which in turn would produce some artifical results.

I don't know. I could see it working for feats which provide things like weapon techniques or special spell like abilities.

Say a shield bash feat. You gain a bonus to attacks with your shield, you do double damage with your shield at the end of a charge, and if you have 15+ Strength, you also knock the target down. At Strength 17+, you can also push them back 10 feet if you hit.

 

[jrowland]

I read the "Skills are optional" a bit differently than everyone else, I think. I read it to mean: Basic Game/Standard Game: Ability checks. Advanced modules: Different Skill methods (3E/4E, ability check +skill modifier etc).

I am totally down with ability checks to "do something" and let some kind of background profession thing (Baker, Brewer, Smith, etc) take up the heavy lifting.

As for the +1 ability feat option, I think most will go for the full suite of feats, and only use the +1 option on an odd ability score. For the beginers using a basic character, they'll use it heavily by default, but will soon want to branch out. I don't think it will be used much, and that is as it should be.

Overall, good article. Did Mearls hire a ghost writer?

 

[Szatany]

I don't know. I could see it working for feats which provide things like weapon techniques or special spell like abilities.

Say a shield bash feat. You gain a bonus to attacks with your shield, you do double damage with your shield at the end of a charge, and if you have 15+ Strength, you also knock the target down. At Strength 17+, you can also push them back 10 feet if you hit.

I guess with some feats it could be fun. But only if it was limited to where it really makes sense.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm curious to see how these feats replace prestige classes. Like what would having an Arcane Archer feat do?

Something like your arrows can inflict fire, cold, lightning, thunder or acid damage. And some limited number of times, determined by something you could can have your arrows inflict damage over a 10' radius cloud.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

I'm curious to see how these feats replace prestige classes. Like what would having an Arcane Archer feat do?

What I've supposed is that they will more or less make individual prestige-class features into feats. Then they could have suggested build for the arcane archer, which is simply a package of feat selections. The nice thing is, designing what used to be prestige classes or paaragon paths would simply be mixing and matching these feats.