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

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't mind if they remove the non-combat feats and call those traits. If themes are the primary way of customizing a character, then there's no reason a theme can't be made up of a mix of feats and traits that back up the description of the theme. This way, themes can be designed to be roughly balanced with one another in regard to the three pillars.

Of course, making themes broad and balanced doesn't require renaming the various social or exploration feats, but calling them traits has another advantage. Instead of presenting an option for players to select individual feats, they could instead provide guidelines so that players can build their own themes be selecting a set number of feats and traits.

 

[jshaft37]

First, in what way is an optimized character not a "PLAYER Character"?

Second, what if I want to roleplay a tough character, but who isn't particularly intimidating? Really, having a lot of HP and endurance doesn't really sound anything like being intimidating, to me. What, fear me because I don't die as quickly if I'm attacked, and I can run far distances?

It was a quick example off the top of my head. Certainly the professionals would be able to perfect the idea, since that is their job.

 

[satori01]

Could you not just have three pillars of feats? Could one also just gain feats from each pillar at different rates, if you wanted?
Thus maybe at Third Level every class gets a feat from every pillar. A Bard, however might get an extra social feat at 2nd level, and a Fighter an extra combat feat.


It is much easier to balance Feats within a pillar. Alertness, Cosmopolitian etc are balanced for the most part against each other. I also think it is a Good Thing (tm), to require people to do a minor amount of branching out . Sometimes Torg the De-Horner says nothing, and just kills things because his player is shy, or just does not know how to move beyond dice roles. Whenever I as a DM make a character for a newbie, I always gave a free non combat thing, like Skill Focus Rope Use, because it is often just that thing that gives someone the courage to not just roll dice, but to try to encourage the narrative to allow them to use that Skill Focus, in a way of their choosing.


It could also lead to moments like this: " So me and Torg were all alone in the Swamp of Doom, and somehow we booth fell asleep. Alls a sudden we hear a evil laugh, and Dvalck, The Silent Scaled Horror is there, and we are dead, and then Torg, he that never says nothing to anyone, gets up and tells this joke, the funniest thing you ever heard, and Dvalk let us go"


Because even your most ardent Combat min-maxer is going to try any Hail Mary pass when a TPK is evident, even if it is Skill Focus: Dirty Jokes.

 

[dkyle]

It was a quick example off the top of my head. Certainly the professionals would be able to perfect the idea, since that is their job.

And my reply was just an example, as well. I could reply the same way to just about anything they could come up with. Because it's inevitably a joining of wildly disparate features. Why should the way I fight determine the way I explore, and the way I interact with others? Sure there might be tendencies and expectations, but part of the fun of building a character is subverting tendencies and expectations.

 

[the Jester]

Whatever we do, let's avoid option overload like the plague.

 

[MoonSong]

Seriously why people insist on thinking that playing a poor combatant is a sin? It is a perfectly valid play style, as valid as any other.

This one blog makes me very sad, none of the possibilities seem very appealing to me. If the only options are siloed feats or complex bloated feats then I rather stay with 3.5 or PF. I'd rather play with a character that totally sucks in combat but that is exactly like I envision than one than is awesome and invincible but I can feel no conection with. Being forced to play the second kind because the rules don't allow me to trade combat prowess for character depth could be a very powerful deal breaker for me (and there aren't a lot of things that would make me ditch Next). But I guess that siloed feats could work for me if -and only if- there is a feat that says "gain 1/2 traits. you can select this feat multiple times, each time you do pick a different trait/traits"

 

[Ratskinner]

Then again, I don't really have a problem with having tons of feats, anyway. As long as power-creep is kept in check, what's the problem? Publishing more feats is a good way to increase build options for those that want them.

My biggest gripe with that is writing up NPCs. If I (as a DM) need to whip out a 7th level necromancer, I'd rather make 10 choices than 45.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

So, you might be looking at something like this:

Fighter: 1 Feat/2 levels, 1 Skill/3 levels, 1 Trait/4 levels
Rogue: 1 Feat/3 levels, 1 Skill/3 levels, 1 Trait/3 levels
(Bard): 1 Feat/3 levels, 1 Skill/4 levels, 1 Trait/2 levels
Wizard: 1 Feat/4 levels, 1 Skill/2 levels, 1 Trait/3 levels
Priest: 1 Feat/3 levels, 1 Skill/4 levels, 1 Trait/2 levels

I like this train of thought, however it would be easier to grant bonus 'things' to classes instead of split progression. That way a fighter could have 2 bonus combat things, a rogue could havve two bonus skill things, a bard 2 bonus interaction things, a ranger 1 bonus combat and one bonus exploration.... etc.

Then the themes and background provide a group of things that fit the flavor.


'Thing's in this case meaning a mechanical ability to do something different. Combat things allow you do do something different with attacks and damage. Skill things let you do something different with skill checks... with skills split into physical, mental, and knowledge groups.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ratskinner]

I tend to want fewer, but bigger chunks of character. Less fiddly bits, please. Although its hard to say for sure out of the context of the rest of the rules, I went with the 3-pronged feats, even though I didn't particularly like the example given.

However, I could be convinced that instead of feats, themes should be three-pronged. Maybe a theme is 3 feats, but they have to come from columns A, B, & C, even if you customize your theme.

 

[dkyle]

My biggest gripe with that is writing up NPCs. If I (as a DM) need to whip out a 7th level necromancer, I'd rather make 10 choices than 45.

The solution there is not building NPCs using the PC rules.

But I was talking about available feats, not feat slots, anyway.