D&D 5E D&D Next Blog "Avoiding Choice Traps"

[Minigiant]

Every minor choosable resource should speak to only One Pillar. So either all Combat Feats. Or all Exploration Feats. Or all Interaction/Roleplay Feats.

Why?

Because unless every player and the DMs choose to pick feats in the same proportion, someone's power will be off. The 100% Combat Feat fighter dominates everyone in combat but twiddles thumbs when talking. The 50/50 bard does everything out of combat for the all combat feat/spell/item party but hides in the corner during the whole dungeon crawl.

That's why I liked 4E's siloed powers. Everyone had something for each pillar of D&D adventuring. In 4E, skills, rituals, and some utility powers did exploration and interaction. Attack powers did combat. And feats were all over the place.

So 5E looks like it is doing silos too.

Background/skills: Mostly exploration and interaction.
Themes/feats: Combat.
Class: A mix of all three.
Race: ?????
"Traits": Mostly Interation

 

[I'm A Banana]

So we have:

a) A "Feat" hits all three pillars, or
b) A "Feat" hits combat pillar. A "Skill" hits the exploration pillar. A "Trait" hits the interaction pillar.

I think of these, I'm a bigger fan of (a).

The reason is because there's no reason to have distinct mechanics for each pillar.

That is to say, an attack roll and a Nature check and a Diplomacy check all use the same mechanic: d20+mods vs. DC. They're all "skill checks." They're all things you can do from level 1. They're all things that improve with level.

But as a feat, "Whirlwind Attack" is different. It's effectively a new action you can take in a round. And "Power Attack" is different still. It's a modification of your core mechanic. And "Ritual Caster" or "Vampire" are different still (opening up new mechanics or character options). They're all new things you can opt into when you gain a level. That's a different sort of bucket.

So say we have a player who is really into the Exploration part of the game. They love wandering through ruins and finding new vistas and pushing the boundaries of the map and hexcrawling or whatever.

And then you say to them: "Everything you want to do is handled by this skill check."

In the same party, you have a player who is really into the Combat part of the game. They love killin' things. Tactics arouse them.

And then you say to them: "You get to make attack rolls, and modify them with feats, and gain new attacks, and have more options."

The first player is going to feel kind of shafted in this design. Why don't they get more cool options as they level up to play in the way they want? If it helps, swap it: attacks are only limited to d20 rolls, but you get feats like, I dunno, Basic Survival Skills, and Pick Locks, and Stealth as you level up. Clearly, one player isn't being engaged as much as the other.

Schwalb mentions a few downsides:

The problem is that feats swell in size, which means we’d likely do fewer of them. Doing fewer of them means fewer choices and also incentivizes us to deliver them less frequently

Given that one of the big complaints about the feat subsystem has been "bloat," this doesn't really seem to be a problem to me.

A few powerful choices is almost always a better approach than a million largely ones of low significance (even if they can add up).

So my vote is for (a).

Something maybe like:
Toughness
You are rugged and hardy. You gain the following benefits:

• +5 maximum hit points
• Endurance checks +2
• Intimidate checks +2

 

[KidSnide]

So we have:

a) A "Feat" hits all three pillars, or
b) A "Feat" hits combat pillar. A "Skill" hits the exploration pillar. A "Trait" hits the interaction pillar.

I think of these, I'm a bigger fan of (a).

I fear option (a) because it generates huge lists of abilities (ten feats with three powers each is very hard to remember).

I posit that it would be better to have combat feats, exploration feats and interaction feats where each theme (including custom themes) has at least one feat from each category. (Obviously, this is the same thing as saying that feats, skills and traits should be interchangable -- I'm currently agnostic on the terminology.) That way, all characters have customization resources in each pillar, but players can still choose to emphasize one pillar without abandoning the others.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

How about no false symmetry with the pillars and the names of the associated building block? Instead, make each building block do something consistent (mechanically), and let it work itself out, probably in a loosely symmetrical way?

For example, limiting myself to the language in the article, let's say that "feats" are choices that give you new options for things you can do, like maneuvers or casting a spell at will. "Skills" let you do some things better--adding onto those ability checks. "Traits" are peripheral stuff you have that you may be able to use to your advantage, such as a noble title or follower.

I bet in that framework, most feats will be combat related, most skills will be exploration related (though not as cleanly as feats are to combat), and traits will favor interaction. Then if your follower is a man at arms, and helps in combat, fine. You can still get a skill to boost a Cha check for diplomatic stuff. A combat feat that lets you jump well is handy for clearing a pit out of combat, too.

That way, feats, skills, and traits provide a rough balance in the pillars, in that depending on how the class access each, it can only go so far. OTOH, you can, if you want, gravitate towards the stuff in each mechanical group that crosses over to another group. If your fighter takes some intimidation skills and traits that refect authority in a military setting, those may supplement the more direct combat feats. I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A feat should let you customize your character. If you want to be good at attacking with your favorite weapon, you should be able to take a feat that gives you combat bonuses. If you want to be a nerdy academic wizard, you should be able to take feats that make you smart but do little for your combat prowess. If you want to take a feat to be resilient, your improved fort save should help you resist a poison attack or win a drinking contest. Many feats, if written and interpreted broadly, should have uses inside and outside of a battle. But not all of them.

The rules are here to describe characters, not limit them, and they should help you describe all valid character choices, not just the ones that maximize your combat effectiveness.

 

[jshaft37]

Combat Powers
Exploration Feats
Roleplaying Skills

Every PC starts with one of each, then add one of the three at each level, that also helps reconcile no dead levels, but keeps math and bloat down.

 

[dkyle]

Combat Powers
Exploration Feats
Roleplaying Skills

Every PC starts with one of each, then add one of the three at each level, that also helps reconcile no dead levels, but keeps math and bloat down.

I like 4E, but the term "Powers" should probably go away, outside of Psionics, for the sake of placating certain people.

"Feats" is primarily evocative of combat to me, anyway, and I think Skills is perfect for Exploration. I like Traits for Interaction, too, if that's a separate thing. But I'd rather have them folded into Skills, where it becomes:

A Feat and a Skill at first level, alternate between the two for subsequent levels.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another option, mutually exclusive with my previous suggestion: Most such items (feats, traits, whatever you call them) have a primary focus in one pillar and then a secondary focus in another pillar. Try to mix up the primary/secondary divisions such that there is a good mix. If an item logically is just a primary, it's too narrow. Broaden the concept a bit to make it work. If an item hits all three, it's too broad. Break it up into a couple of smaller items.

Alternately, allow a handful (and only a handful!) of exceeding flavorful "primary only" and "all three pillars" concepts to stand, just to mix things up a bit. Basically, the default it to be extremely prejudiced against such, but if something is too good to pass up, let it in as an exception.

 

[jshaft37]

I like 4E, but the term "Powers" should probably go away, outside of Psionics, for the sake of placating certain people.

"Feats" is primarily evocative of combat to me, anyway, and I think Skills is perfect for Exploration. I like Traits for Interaction, too, if that's a separate thing. But I'd rather have them folded into Skills, where it becomes:

A Feat and a Skill at first level, alternate between the two for subsequent levels.

The names powers, skills, feats, traits, abilities, etc are all semantic/jargon anyway. My point was assign one to each pillar for the PCs to be granted as they level. I have no idea how that would work with a Vancian magic system though.

 

[am181d]

I'd prefer that we NOT add another category of "thing."

I think the problem is that it's hard to balance feats if they all cost 1 slot. Pre-reqs and trees help this a bit, but ultimately an intro combat feat is probably going to be "worth more" than a non-combat feat.

Two suggestions:
1) make non-combat feats more awesomer (if "fast runner" is a joke, make it "faster runner")
2) make non-combat feats cheaper (if you take "fast runner" you can also take "the hand is faster than the eye" as part of the same slot)

But ultimately, what we've had in the past is not THAT broken. 3.5 and 4e were both great games. If you produce something that is incrementally better than both, you're on a good trajectory.

If you start over from scratch, you could just as easily lose ground.