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

[FitzTheRuke]

I've not read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone else suggested it, but I think the best of both possible worlds would perhaps be to have every feat speak to TWO of the three pillars.

This way each feat wouldn't be too big modifying so many things
There could be more variety in feats (than if they all spoke to all three)
You could ignore most feats containing a pillar your group plays down
You wouldn't have to pick between an essential-seeming combat feat and a cool RP feat (though we can hope there won't be truly essential combat feats)

I think it might be a good middle-ground.

 

[howandwhy99]

Combat & Non-Combat abilities. Ugh. Let's spell it out a different way, more tactical versus strategic. Encounter Rounds versus Adventuring Turns and longer measured timelines (like days, months, etc.)

I think this is what they're doing with adventure-based balancing instead of encounter-based (though I expect encounters will still be addressed).

How do we avoid Combat vs. Non-Combat ability choices? Make all choices both? I think it's easiest simply to account for actions on all scales.

Honestly, I don't really care for feats or skills at all though. I plan on dumping them, so this is really up to other people.

I see Combat, Environmental, & Social interaction as the realms of the Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric respectively. Retaining those would be nice.

 

[fuindordm]

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.

Yes and yes. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

 

[eamon]

Just because a player (in either 3e or 4e) has chosen a few more combat vs. non-combat feats isn't going to make him dominate his respective field. Feats aren't that powerful. So it's not a huge problem when feats aren't silo-ed.

The real problem is broken must-have feats (*cough* expertise) in combination with traps. In particular, any non-combat feat should be sufficiently broad (rather than powerful) that it's likely to actually come up and matter. Abilities which involve one character going it alone (3e rogue's disease) tend not to come up because they bore everyone else.

 

[Ratskinner]

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

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

Problem with that is that likelihood of having a "One Optimum Path" increases with the number of choices. Its not my biggest gripe, though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The issue that is really here is not whether feats/traits/whatever cover all three pillars or not. Why? Because it's not the pillars, but the game mechanic systems that these things will modify. And when you look at it that way, there currently is a major disparity between combat, exploration, and interaction.

Exploration? Right now in the game, the only system that deals with it is ability checks and the skill system.

Interaction? Same thing. Ability checks with the skill system.

But combat? Well, we're going to have the attack and defense system. The saving throw system. The initiative system. The arcane spell system. The divine spell system. The weapon system. The armor system. The speed and movement system. The Turn Undead system. Etc. etc. etc.

Why have feats traditionally all been about combat, and those few that were non-combat paled in comparison? There's your answer. There are many more game systems within D&D that involve combat, for which feats could be created to modify them.

So I believe there's no reason to split up the exploration and interaction pillars into two separate silos, at least as far as the skill/trait ideas were concerned... because there just aren't enough game systems in place to warrant it. The fact is... unless new game mechanics and system are put in place... BOTH interaction and roleplay are going to be covered by just the ability check and skill system... and thus, the only thing you really need to modify both of them are Traits.

So there real question is... which of our four "things" would grant you Traits as part of advancement? Race? Class? Background? Theme?

My personal opinion? Race and Background.

Of our four "things"... I think the split is fairly obvious. Class and Theme are about your combat abilities... Race and Background are about your skill, your personality, who you were, who you are, how people see and deal with you, and how you see and deal with the world. All the things the non-combat "Traits" would modify.

Just because you're a dwarf, doesn't mean you automatically should be more skilled using an axe or hammer. Just because you're an elf, shouldn't mean you automatically would lean to the longsword over another weapon. At least in my opinion. Leave Class to give you combat mechanics and Themes to grant you feats which affect those mechanics. Then have Background grant you skills and Race and Background grant you Traits which affect those Skills. Easy split. Easy to grant slots as you level up. Easy way to make things like your Race and Background matter over time.

At least, that's my feeling on the matter.

 

[Mattachine]

I would be happy if there was an explicit discussion about the use of feats to customize or improve your character. So, if feats cover a wide range of things, and you focus on non-combat feats, you won't be as good in combat as some other characters.

That may seem obvious, but I think it needs an explicit reference in the rules. In other editions, the feats are portrayed as all being about equal, when clearly they aren't.

Funny, this "just make sure it is clearly discussed" answer has come up in a lot of my thoughts about 5e.

 

[hanez]

How about we let the players decide where they want to focus instead of setting up some system that forces them a certain way.

The author mentions his player took "fast running", so... whats wrong with that?

My solution, make a variety of feats that focus on a variety of things, try to balance them, and let the players decide where they want to focus. Sure in combat heavy games the combat ones will be more powerful. Its up to the player to decide what they want to take.

 

[dkyle]

So there real question is... which of our four "things" would grant you Traits as part of advancement? Race? Class? Background? Theme?

My personal opinion? Race and Background.

Of our four "things"... I think the split is fairly obvious. Class and Theme are about your combat abilities... Race and Background are about your skill, your personality, who you were, who you are, how people see and deal with you, and how you see and deal with the world. All the things the non-combat "Traits" would modify.

I'd like to see:

Class: combat stuff for everyone, occasional Trait stuff for classes traditionally associated with certain exploration or interaction things (e.g., Rogues and Bards)
Race: basically even mix of stuff in each pillar. I like Race having some importance in combat. Otherwise, it just doesn't feel very important at all.
Theme: purely combat.
Background: purely exploration and interaction stuff.

Just because you're a dwarf, doesn't mean you automatically should be more skilled using an axe or hammer. Just because you're an elf, shouldn't mean you automatically would lean to the longsword over another weapon. At least in my opinion.

But then what things should dwarves and elves be automatically better at? Should it only be biological stuff, like Darkvision, poison/magical-sleep resistance? Or also cultural stuff, like dungeoneering for Dwarves, and wilderness for Elves? Those seem like logical racial Traits, but if it's OK to have cultural Traits, why isn't it OK to have culture-based combat stuff?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Those seem like logical racial Traits, but if it's OK to have cultural Traits, why isn't it OK to have culture-based combat stuff?

My only reason for splitting them up was to even things out. If you're getting feat progressions via Themes, do you NEED to get them via Race as well? Not really. Sure... it would make all the sense in the world that some part of your Race would affect combat ability... but if Class and Theme already represent that pillar... does it really matter if Race ultimately doesn't? I'm just trying to even out the distribution a little.

That being said... I also wouldn't have a problem if at level 1 your Race granted you a few combat-leaning abilities as part of your natural inclination of being a race. So the dwarves/axes thing wouldn't really bother me. I would just say though that PAST Level 1... your Race would then only grant additional Traits, and not Feats which affect combat-ability. Because at that point in your PC's career... it should really be their Class that causes their combat ability to get better, not just "being a half-orc" or whatever. At least, that's my opinion on it.