D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[Micah Sweet]

Yea, that's a little One True Way for me, sorry. In some games, the focus is on the characters and their story, and the setting is just there to be a framework for their story. In other games, exploring the setting is the primary focus, and the characters are meant to be somewhat interchangeable.

Neither way of playing is wrong; they're simply different techniques to use that can work better or worse for different groups and different systems.

I agree that either way can work great for different groups of players, but I strongly dislike campaigns where the setting is just backdrop to the player's stories. Drives me up the wall as a DM or a player, actually.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree that either way can work great for different groups of players, but I strongly dislike campaigns where the setting is just backdrop to the player's stories. Drives me up the wall as a DM or a player, actually.

And that’s totally fine! It’s just important to recognize that’s a personal preference and not a metric for deciding if a game or group is good or bad.

 

[Minigiant]

as Skilled is one of the weaker feats(not seen it taken once), and languages costs like something of a 1/10th of a feat, I would say that 2 skills and 2 languages are half feat.

The issue with Skilled is it is 3 extra skills on top of the 4-7 you already have. No one needs 3 extra skills on top of the 4 they have.

But if you got a feat instead of 2 skills and 2 tools/languages, you only have 2-3 skill proficiency total.

It's diminishing returns. The first 4 skills are huge. The next 2 are kinda nice. The next 4 are bleh unless you are running a 1-3 PC game.

Not me. I mean you could, but then you'd need to put those skills and languages somewhere else. Learning a feat doesn't mean that you suddenly never learned any skills or languages outside of what your class provides. 15+ years of learning before you ever get to your class or gain 1st level don't disappear.

It would have to be special backgrounds.

Like a Mage Apprentice gets you the Magic Initiate feat. You still get skills from being a wizard or sorcerer or whatever. But you have been a mage apprentice so long that you got have that historical power.

Or the Cook background gives you the Chef feat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'll just come out and say it.

If a campaign is "messed up" by a single PC's death, verily, thine GM hast done it wrong.

bull

we had 4 players... we wrote backgrounds. He worked them in. MIne ended up becoming (because of PC choices) the main driving force of the campiang... that and 1 of the players ended there own story super early with some good rolls.

This is why you should not be able to plan more than one session ahead. This is why you do not do pre-planned "storylines"...

what are you talking about... you don't plan sessions? You don't link sessions? your games don't flow from the choices players make? cause that DM did (and does those things...

You set up the situation and factions, then manage and arbitrate the madness as the PC's run around pursuing their goals.

and if the character driving the goal dies, that goal dies with them... when you have 2 PCs still having said goals loss of either one throws the game out of wack and looseing both ends it... I don't know how you don't understand.

If the game world is not compelling enough to keep the players engaged after a PC death or TPK, to want to come back for more; Then the GM has placed the cart before the horse when creating and running the campaign.

bull... your one true wayism can go jump in a lake

There are very good reasons why Gygax listed the natural order of play as:
The Game as a whole First.
The Campaign Second.
PLAYERS Third.

cause Gygax didn't run modern games>

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, definitely group dependent. Our group is pretty hardcore about not being fans of the DM pulling punches when it comes to lethality.

has anyone in this thread suggested pulling punches?!?!

 

[Micah Sweet]

bull

we had 4 players... we wrote backgrounds. He worked them in. MIne ended up becoming (because of PC choices) the main driving force of the campiang... that and 1 of the players ended there own story super early with some good rolls.


what are you talking about... you don't plan sessions? You don't link sessions? your games don't flow from the choices players make? cause that DM did (and does those things...

and if the character driving the goal dies, that goal dies with them... when you have 2 PCs still having said goals loss of either one throws the game out of wack and looseing both ends it... I don't know how you don't understand.

bull... your one true wayism can go jump in a lake

cause Gygax didn't run modern games>

I do agree with that progression, but other people enjoy other things. You do you.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

the number of times I have seen Vampire games GRIND TO A SCREACHING HAULT mid story becuse a vampire has to spend a week spending blood and willpower just to get back his health and not be at -X to rolls is amazing... worse still when you try to play a game and get a character that gets Agg right out of the gate and you get to decided "Does every threat have to have fortitude, or can this 1 character just boom past defenses"

then again past editions of D&D did it too... 1 character has an AC 32, and 4 characters are all in the teens... to hit the 32 on anything other then a 19 or 20 you have a monster with +14 to hit... that auto hits all but 1 other party member on anything other than a 1...

That kind of stuff made me quit Dming in the 3.x era except for saves not AC.

 

[James Gasik]

has anyone in this thread suggested pulling punches?!?!

All I really said is I enjoy having some fallbacks. Now if 5e has too many fallbacks, is debatable. Certainly in the healing thread, I found maybe the hit dice mechanic was a little too generous. I didn't mind 4e's "maximum healing per diem" mechanic with healing surges (yes, there were a few close calls, but there was a Ritual that let you spread out the costs a bit). But really, all we need is something else to do with hit dice to remedy that.

If the game was harder, it'd probably be fine, but finding the exact sweet spot where you can make the players feel that they have to be cautious, yet have wiggle room not to murder them with an overtuned encounter or using really good enemy tactics, is something many game designers have attempted, and no one has gotten it quite right yet.

Now the question this thread has to contemplate is, will a few extra Feats radically alter the balance too far in the player's favor?

I...don't think so. Like, take Tough. Wow. 40 extra hit points at level 20 sounds like a lot, but at level 1? It's TWO. It's going to take awhile before that matters in the slightest.

In fact, I think what being able to take Toughness at level 1 with a Background will do is just make people think they can go with slightly less Constitution.

So what's the kind of Feat that can really alter things at low levels? Heavy Armor Master has my vote- I played a variant human with that at level 1, and it felt pretty busted. By later levels, it's not a big deal though.

Observant, Alert, Inspiring Leader maybe? Although compared to a Twilight Domain Cleric, Inspiring Leader is peanuts.

 

[TwoSix]

has anyone in this thread suggested pulling punches?!?!

Im not sure. But being a group that doesn’t want high lethality is totally fine.

 

[Horwath]

The issue with Skilled is it is 3 extra skills on top of the 4-7 you already have. No one needs 3 extra skills on top of the 4 they have.

But if you got a feat instead of 2 skills and 2 tools/languages, you only have 2-3 skill proficiency total.

It's diminishing returns. The first 4 skills are huge. The next 2 are kinda nice. The next 4 are bleh unless you are running a 1-3 PC game.

problem in skilled is that is weak and that is why we got Skill expert.
Skilled can be beefed up to have an option for 2 skills with an +1 ASI or 4 skills.

with +1 ASI, you can take is at 4th level and still get "combat" value out of it with raising your primary from 17 to 18.

That is why Telekinetic is best designed feat in the game(not the most powerful):
it gives you + ASI in 3 ability option,
it gives you a cool RP tool with undetectable mage hand,
it gives you a small combat maneuver,
it does not care if your character is based on int, wis or cha. you only need one of those scores to be decent.
if you need int, wis or cha, even as a secondary ability(score of 14), you can use this feat in both RP and combat.