D&D (2024) Fixing General Feats

[fluffybunbunkittens]

nowhere do the rules specify that hiding is shadows (or dim light) is a possibility.

I don't know if it's too weird, because there were only (AFAIK) two special abilities that allowed that (Skulker and Wood Elf). They just ended up changing those to do something else.

I'm more surprised they still kept Halfling 'can hide behind a Medium partymember' as a feature, when getting a free Stealth proficiency in the playtest was applicable to a lot more character types...

 

[Weiley31]

Maybe the new DMG will change things.

But XP is rewarded for slaughter.

But how did you convince the DM to say yes to that?

 

[ECMO3]

But how did you convince the DM to say yes to that?

If it is what the players want why would the DM say no?

 

[ECMO3]

I'm more surprised they still kept Halfling 'can hide behind a Medium partymember' as a feature, when getting a free Stealth proficiency in the playtest was applicable to a lot more character types...

I love this ability. Stealth proficiency or even expertise does not allow this. It is something unique to Halflings that is tangible and thematic, not just mechanical.

 

[Weiley31]

If it is what the players want why would the DM say no?

Cuz then the DM goes "That's not how it goes at this table son, now don't try that bag of rats trick either."

Then the cat smacks ya.

 

[Mistwell]

I am considering few ways to fix this problem:

If you're looking for advice, I always recommend you start by playing the game as written, and only make modifications once you find in actual play it's an issue. Particularly for this edition, I don't think anyone can easily can see the entirety of the game in their head theoretically. There are too many subtle things which compliment and build on each other in unexpected ways.

Right now for example Treantmonk, who does D&D numbers analysis for a living, has been surprised to find the damage Martial characters do is far higher than it used to be, and it's looking very competitive with casting classes. But he only really figured that out when he got very far into the analysis, and had run many playtests of these actual rules. And still he cannot be positive of a lot, because he's not done with all the analysis necessary, and he's months into it doing this on a daily basis.

[Also, a Barbarian Berserker at levels 11+ very likely does more single-target damage than spellcasters]

If you want to see what kind of rabbit hole you can scurry down in crunching all the numbers for 5.24e, I recommend his upcoming Fighter video, which nearly breaks his brain in the pages and pages and pages of excel spreadsheet necessary to calculate all the interacting stuff at higher levels.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

If you're looking for advice, I always recommend you start by playing the game as written, and only make modifications once you find in actual play it's an issue.

I would need to get into a game for that, my own campaign is going strong and I'm not switching to different system, even an update, at level 12. maybe once we finish, unless we change systems, or I get into a game as a player

If you want to see what kind of rabbit hole you can scurry down in crunching all the numbers for 5.24e, I recommend his upcoming Fighter video,

I'm gonna level with you here - I hate Treantmonk's videos. After watching two I came to conclusion his number crunchiung strikes me as removing fun out of the game for math fetish, he operates by declaring a conclusion and working backwards to justify it, often deploying severe whiterooming, to the poitn even if I agree with the conclusion, I am appaled by the way he got to it, and he strikes me as having too much nostalgia for the worst edition of D&D, 3.5, to be trustworthy.

 

[Will Brandiman]

I'm gonna level with you here - I hate Treantmonk's videos. After watching two I came to conclusion his number crunchiung strikes me as removing fun out of the game for math fetish, he operates by declaring a conclusion and working backwards to justify it, often deploying severe whiterooming, to the poitn even if I agree with the conclusion, I am appaled by the way he got to it, and he strikes me as having too much nostalgia for the worst edition of D&D, 3.5, to be trustworthy.

Personally I don't agree with your view of his videos but everyone's entitled to their own opinion. What I would say however is that he plays more D&D than probably 99.9% of the rest of us. He's also had the new PHB for several months now. He is saying, and demonstrating with DPR calculations, that characters, particularly martials, are stronger than ever. He's not recommending any 'fixes' like the ones you are suggesting. In fact, the only things I have seen him suggest need changing are the Conjure Minor Elementals upscaling and the Shepherd druid.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I love this ability. Stealth proficiency or even expertise does not allow this. It is something unique to Halflings that is tangible and thematic, not just mechanical.

My first impression is rather that it screws over Halflings that aren't Dex+Stealth builds (preferrably with Rogue2 so you can do this as a bonus action)...

But, actually, with the new stealth-Invisibility, it does allow for 'wait where did one of them go' scenes when people are just talking, and it's basically a free action to do at that time. Hmm. That might actually be workable.

 

[Horwath]

My first impression is rather that it screws over Halflings that aren't Dex+Stealth builds (preferrably with Rogue2 so you can do this as a bonus action)...

But, actually, with the new stealth-Invisibility, it does allow for 'wait where did one of them go' scenes when people are just talking, and it's basically a free action to do at that time. Hmm. That might actually be workable.

yeah, halflings are only one left with a trait that works ONLY for rogues really. Sure all stealthy characters "might" have some usage of it but probably not in combat.

maybe halfling could have got "agile athlete" feature; pick a skill proficiency in one skill out of;
Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth, Sleight of hands.