Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 8796148" data-attributes="member: 1465">My thought is that this is worse than the 2014 version of feats.I love using feats, but I don't want them being mandatory in the game, which is what WotC has already decided they should be. At least in the last playtest article they actually introduced a way out, because ASI is now a feat... so technically you can say feats aren't really mandatory because you can always choose the ASI feat. Still, many (if not all) backgrounds will come with a feat that probably won't be swappable with the ASI feat, but this is still unknown at the time.Having levelled feat is bad because it significantly reduces the options. In 5e, a human (variant) can choose any feat. This is the primary (mechanical) reason to choose to play a variant human character. In 5.5e, assuming there'll be still a race with a bonus feat at 1st level, they will gravitate more commonly around the same 2-3 feats, because the majority of feats will require a higher level. Less character diversity makes the game worse on the long term.Adding new requirements (minimum level or other) to feats also further restricts what feats each character can take. Adding +1 ability bonus to every single feat is also another think that disgusts me... if it were me I would have actually removed all ability bonuses to all feats and added new small additional benefits in their place. Because just like there are players or playing group who don't like feats, there are also players or playing groups who don't like ability increases.All these changes really give me the feeling that while 5e was the most &quot;freedom edition&quot; of all, WotC has already decided that next edition needs to take a step back and be more restricted, according to the way WotC has decided everybody should play the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 8796148, member: 1465"] My thought is that this is worse than the 2014 version of feats. I love using feats, but I don't want them being mandatory in the game, which is what WotC has already decided they should be. At least in the last playtest article they actually introduced a way out, because ASI is now a feat... so technically you can say feats aren't really mandatory because you can always choose the ASI feat. Still, many (if not all) backgrounds will come with a feat that probably won't be swappable with the ASI feat, but this is still unknown at the time. Having levelled feat is bad because it significantly reduces the options. In 5e, a human (variant) can choose any feat. This is the primary (mechanical) reason to choose to play a variant human character. In 5.5e, assuming there'll be still a race with a bonus feat at 1st level, they will gravitate more commonly around the same 2-3 feats, because the majority of feats will require a higher level. Less character diversity makes the game worse on the long term. Adding new requirements (minimum level or other) to feats also further restricts what feats each character can take. Adding +1 ability bonus to every single feat is also another think that disgusts me... if it were me I would have actually [I]removed[/I] all ability bonuses to all feats and added new small additional benefits in their place. Because just like there are players or playing group who don't like feats, there are also players or playing groups who don't like ability increases. All these changes really give me the feeling that while 5e was the most "freedom edition" of all, WotC has already decided that next edition needs to take a step back and be more restricted, according to the way WotC has decided everybody should play the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification