D&D 4E 4E had better have fewer skills & feats

[Emirikol]

The evolution of D&D has gone from basic to complicated and schisms back and forth.

Remember when there used to be 5 different saving throws? Now three.
Remember when there used to be 15 different versions of weapon damage for every name ever put on a pole-arm? Now there's three.

Remember when there used to be 10 different skills categories (Dung surv. guide or basic skills-gazetteer)? Now there's what? 30?

There has never been the likeness of "Feats" before, but that's another thing that's grown out of control.

I really hope that in 4.0 the # of feats and skills is greatly reduced to 'major categories.' That aspect of character creation and character 'maintenance & accounting' is really lame.

jh
I'd also like to see more 'low-level' adjustments to reward players earlier, but not throw massively overpowering ability advances at every level advance.

 

[Crothian]

skills are hardly out of control. There are few in the core books I'd get rid of, and even the 1000 new books really hasn't added many new ones. Feats, again there really aren't many I'd get rid of from the core books and many from the optional books that have come out that I'd like to see added. THe game is about options and the more options the better it is. It is easier to have tone down the options from too many then it is to increase the options if the books offer too few.

 

[A'koss]

I'd also like to see the Skill list paired down significantly, many skills should be grouped together, and a different resolution mechanic to bring down the disparities at higher levels. I agree that "skill bonus accounting" is a royal pain and should be addressed.

Feats on the other hand... Feats are like spells, you're always going to see more. It would be nice to see fewer feats, but have each be more comprehensive, a kind of adventuring style as it were. You take one style and gain several abilities or adjustments over the course of a number of levels.

Hmmm....

Cheers!

 

[painandgreed]

What I think they need to do is put out a core book that has very few skills and feats. Basically each class is pretty well set in what they get per level. Then put out an "Advanced Core Book" that adds in all the rest of the skills and feats. The main point is to create an easy to play "basic" set as well as an "advanced" set that are both the same game and interchangable for the most part. I think that would satisfy the people who want a simple game and one that can act as an easy entry point for new players as well as those of us that want lots of skills, feats, and other things for a well fleshed out RPG.

I'm in the camp of more the better.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'd like to see more options for point build in D&D.

Something for buying your hit points for example, based on your race. Every other creature in the game gets hit dice based on their type except classes.

I'd also like to see cross-class skills eliminated and feats given a blank point cost.

Yeah, I want to see D&D go more GURPS and Hero than it already has.

 

[Zappo]

There is a huge difference between saving throws and skills/feats - everyone has every saving throw, but everyone only has a few skills and feats. Although this isn't strictly true for skills - technically, everyone has every skill except for the "trained only" ones... which is the reason for which new supplements tend not to introduce new skills.

Feats, on the other hand, can grow quite a lot without causing problems. Because any given player doesn't have to know or even be aware of all of them, but only of the ones his character knows.

If I had to give an example of a real problem in this area, it would be clerical spells. You have every single one of them, and every time you buy a new book the problem worsens. I'd like a hypotetical 4E to either greatly reduce the number of clerical spells, or to arrange things so that clerics no longer have every possible spell at their disposal.

 

[Emirikol]

It's wierd: if it wasn't for feats, several d20 companies would probably be out of business.

Skills havent' seemed to make much of an impact on d20 from a sales standpoint, so what's the point of sustaining such a huge accounting system?

jh

 

[Empress]

What is a character without skills? Is it really satisfiying to only define your character in terms of combat abilities?

I think skills are an important part of role-playing games. The only thing I could see changinf is define the skills with consitent detail: Some skills are very broad (survival). others very specific (the craft skills, perform).

Broad categories would be nice. Let's say "acrobatics" encompassing tumble, balance; "sports" encompassing climbing, jumping; "sneaking" being hide and move silently, and so on.

I haven't felt the bookkeeping aspect to be a great hassle so far, but I haven't been playing for long.

 

[zalgar07]

Here's a hint.

seankreynolds.com has a list of "feat points" for all the feats in the PHB. Not all feats are created equal (duh) so he gives them point values as well as an explanation for the relative values, making it easy for you to do the same with 3rd-party feats.

 

[Emirikol]

Not that I disagree with you Empress, however the accounting for skills is really more complicated than it needs to be. I think the 'skills' could be reduced down into fewer categories and a simpler system that allows for more role-playing feel.

jh
..