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

[Ratskinner]

Supposedly high level feats will be "tremendous" and much cooler than the existing feats. So, they're pretty much going to be more effective than +1 to a stat.

Sure, your first couple +1s are well worth it. Get that Dex up to a 20 (+1 init, AC, attack, damage, saves, checks? Don't mind if I do) and maybe change an odd score or two. Upping evens to the next tier for two feats though? Be hard pressed to make it worth the wait, especially with feats already doing much of those kinds of bonuses. Why increase Con when you can pick up the upgraded version of today's Durable kind of thing, plus another feat.

Anyhow, that's why I'm thinking more and more that +2 to a stat is a better balance point. Even if it's _still_ unbalanced because Dex is better than Cha, by a long shot.

hmmm...

...maybe there's "paragon" feats that give you +2 Stat in order to keep up, but you have to be level X to take them.

Although personally, I like the idea of a +1 just getting passed up, myself.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Ability score increases have a small but widespread impact. A single +1 will affect a lot of rolls, but an individual roll is only being slightly modified. That's why they're both valuable and inessential at the same time. They're always in the "nice to have" category, but worth passing up for a solid, fun to play feat.

So, sure, optimizers might focus on ability score increases. Others might focus on feats. But, even at the same table, the former won't be exceptionally more powerful than the latter. That seems a fair compromise to me.

Of course, that's still speculation until we see the new feats in action.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't like the idea of a Feat for +1 to a stat. Not only does it take 2 to make a difference, but also pulls out the customization to a character that feats originally provided. And I definitely don't want to roll up a character and hear someone go "Wow you rolled a 17 for your Strength! That means you only need to waste 3 feats to get it up to Max!"

Wow, when you put it that way, that makes me really dislike a system that forces a choice between brute effectiveness from high stats and variety and choice with feats. I prefer the system in the current playtest package and in 4e that lets you do both so players feel free to customize their characters with feats without giving up effectiveness.

I'm having a hard time seeing when giving up a +1 for a feat is ever going to be worth it in a game which is so heavily tied to levels and vertical advancement of a character.

Why do you find it so difficult to believe that the new feats will be powerful enough to be worth taking?

 

[jadrax]

Why do you find it so difficult to believe that the new feats will be powerful enough to be worth taking?

The track record of D&D feats is abysmal. Its really hard to envision anything that will be worthwhile.

I fully expect a huge list of underwhelming over-complex powers with ludicrous prerequisites, half of which are trap options.

I would love to be proven wrong though.

 

[Weather Report]

The track record of D&D feats is abysmal. Its really hard to envision anything that will be worthwhile.

I fully expect a huge list of underwhelming over-complex powers with ludicrous prerequisites, half of which are trap options.

I would love to be proven wrong though.

Yes, I too am wary of Feats, as Feat bloat really polluted 3rd and 4th Ed (and powers).

But I like it that you can just scrap them completely, and Skills, so that's good news.

 

[darjr]

I am also worried about the quality of the feats.

Though I'm optimistic that feats won't be as useful for optimization and unintended min maxing.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I wrote that I'm in favor of a general rule similar to weapon prof, i.e. "strong" disadvantage to checks if you are not proficient at the skill or tools, with "strong" meaning that disadvantage cannot be cancelled by advantage (but this bit is arguable).

But we have to understand the situation at hand. Improvising i.e. attempting a check your PC is not good at, is going to be used in emergency situations or situations where the players are running out of ideas, and only if there is no one around trained at that. Therefore it is quite important that the penalty is significant (and I think disadvantage is significant enough). Otherwise it devalues the significance of getting trained in something.

Realism is only a fringe benefit. It matters for some believability, but it is not the most important thing and it's not the main reason for having non-weapon proficiency rules (and in this example, I think you're wrong... I would need you to be there to tell me where to attach that rope and how to tie that knot, I can tie my shoes but I don't know how to tie sailor's knots without instructions from someone who is in fact trained... if I improvise a knot on a thick sailing rope, it'll almost certainly never work! if you know how to do it, it's too easy to think anyone can do it, but it's false). Non-weapon proficiency rules main purpose is to create roles in the game, so that whenever the group needs to sail a ship, they ask the trained PC to take that role, and if no one has they hire someone or improvise. Once again, I am in favor of allowing improvisation, just as long as it clearly is an inferior solution to getting trained.

I am not sure is you agree or disagree with me here. I think having disadvantage on skills you don't have sound like a nice mechanic.

Btw, the boat I sailed was a Nordlandsbåt, and really it's just as simpled as I told you. It's small though, only about 20'-25', but it's larger cousins are very similar. The knot you are worrying about is about as hard as tying shoelaces. Everybody can do it, but not every knot comes up easily. (Which is a common trait with knots used for sailing - they are supposed to be easy to untie, the problem isn't making one that holds.)

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am also worried about the quality of the feats.

Though I'm optimistic that feats won't be as useful for optimization and unintended min maxing.

I hope they put most of the class-releated feats in the classes and have feats that go a bit beyond that and into customization instead of optimization.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Btw, the boat I sailed was a Nordlandsbåt, and really it's just as simpled as I told you. It's small though, only about 20'-25', but it's larger cousins are very similar. The knot you are worrying about is about as hard as tying shoelaces. Everybody can do it, but not every knot comes up easily. (Which is a common trait with knots used for sailing - they are supposed to be easy to untie, the problem isn't making one that holds.)

I'm a proponent of allowing untrained use of skills, so I'm not arguing that.

But I assume the sailing you performed was in relatively calm waters. In D&D terms a DC 5 check, pretty much automatic as long as you have the time. Something I wouldn't even call for a roll to resolve. It's when the summoned storm whips up and waves begin crashing over the boat. The DC goes up appropriately and the unskilled sailor finds himself and the boat smashed upon the shore when the clouds clear.

 

[RHGreen]

• The skills are awkward at the table. Some DMs still ask for a "Spot check" or other named skill. Veteran players know what that means, but new players are lost. They might not have a Spot skill anywhere on their character sheets. We'd like the DM to only ever worry about asking for an ability check.
• The skill die mechanic really doesn't address either point. It reins in the bonus somewhat, but people who like skills find it isn't big enough. It also does nothing to address awkwardness at the table, since DMs still need to be clear about what kind of check they are looking for.

The player should control what ability and skill is used to accomplish what they are attempting. But that should be done through description, not by just saying "I use Strength, with Abilities should be divorced from skills. Unless the DM thinks that the player is trying to pull a fast one or just really badly wrong.

No professor, if you really are a professor, Blinkiss and Romuloid combine to form Jinkojags - not Holoplops. ((I'm using my Intelligence to Intimidate))