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

[Dausuul]

Upon reading this, I knew there was something that felt wrong about it, but it took me a while to figure it out.

Here's the problem: The D&DN design team is thinking about a feat as something that gives you +X to Y. This is exactly what was wrong with feats in 3E and 4E, why a potentially awesome mechanic degenerated into a lot of +1 to this and +2 to that.

Feats should give you new options, or boost sub-optimal options to be on par with the rest. This is still a power boost, of course, but a very limited one because it doesn't stack--you can only use one feat at a time. Once you start thinking of feats that way, you can quit worrying about which pillar they support. A fighter with half a dozen combat feats will be a more versatile combatant than a fighter with none, but the fighter with none can still fall back on "I hit it with my sword" and make a solid contribution. She's just as accurate and hits just as hard. Meanwhile, she's got half a dozen exploration or roleplaying feats to give her more options in those arenas.

The bane of the feat system is the Expertise feat: A feat that gives you +1 to hit, or to damage, or to your save DCs, or whatever. It's bland and boring and flavorless. It adds nothing to your character concept. It doesn't give you cool new things to do. But it's the feat everybody ends up taking, because when you pile a bunch of Expertise feats together, you're so much better at what you do than the PC who took cool and interesting feats.

Any feat whose function is "You get +X to Y," where Y is something you'd be doing anyway, needs to die in a fire. Problem solved.

 

[Blackwarder]

I haven't made my mind yet, my main problem is the notion that feats should speak only of combat, that I don't like, but I'm still not convinced about how to deal with it...

What I do know is that I don't want a system that reward game mechanics that deal only with combat.

One idea that do float in my mind is to have them all in a big list but have them cost feat points, so some feats will only cost one point while others would cost two or three points.

Edit: agree completely with Dausuul, completely.

Warder

 

[Trance-Zg]

We found that the exploration and interaction sistem can be fixed quickly by adding to all classes +2 skill points more per level and not making cross class skills cost double(rank limit still stays)

that gives double the skill points to fighter but only 25%more to rogue. but the rogue still keeps his 6 points more advantage.

that way all classes can somewhat competent skills

 

[eamon]

Any feat whose function is "You get +X to Y," where Y is something you'd be doing anyway, needs to die in a fire. Problem solved.

I think that's going too far. For example Weapon Focus in 4e is in my mind a fine feat; not too overpowered to force everyone to take it, yet relevant (perhaps in epic its too strong; I can't judge that as well).

I think it's important to include simple feats that do not add character options nor make them more complex. Not everyone wants nifty tricks; there should be a reasonably bland and not too powerful (nor too weak) alternative to let people that don't want to fully customize all the mechanics just pick em.

Similar feats would be Lightning Reflexes and Toughness - they don't need to be great; they just need to exist and be reasonable OK for most characters so that there's some simple alternative if you don't want to bother choosing. Ideally, these would all be in a short initial section of feats to enable a quick choice too.

But yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be "great" feats either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I think you're getting close to the heart of the matter, but I think you're missing one component.

Pre 4e, exploration and interaction were also handled via various spells.

Now, I think it's very possible to expand those other two pillars without necessarily adding much extra material, but using the tools we already have.

Your Will defense in combat also works in Interaction. Your Fortitude defense in combat also works in Exploration. Your skills can work as weapons do in combat (Diplomacy Proficiency: +3 to social roles, crit on 19-20). Your powers/spells/abilities can apply to those pillars, too (maybe you can learn something like a non-magical Charm Person with Diplomacy, or a non-magical Invisibility with Stealth).

So if you fight an orc, you're making sword attacks against their armor. If you hide from an orc, you're making Stealth rolls against their Will. If you need to flee through the forest, maybe you're making Endurance rolls against the forest's general difficulty (while its making rolls against your Fortitude to stop you early).

Rather than dismissing and piling together the social and exploration dimensions of the game, we need to put back in proficiencies and powers and complex interactions in that field. Because if you go to a player that loves interaction, and tell them they can only make d20 rolls, it's a lot like going to a player that loves combat, and telling them they can only play fighters who only make basic attacks. It's just not going to engage them like they need to be engaged.

D&D has always had a struggle with the noncombat aspects of the game, so this isn't really something that looking back on the history of the game will necessarily help with. This demands new innovation. But there are aspects of the game that can help inform this (skills/nonweapon proficiencies, and rituals/noncombat magic, specifically).

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I hope D&D Next allows me to create characters that are just bad in combat situations, much like I'll sometimes want to play the dumb barbarian with no social skills or the noble scion that follows the group around the dungeon despite having no exploration talents.

Those characters are great to roleplay, and they were part of D&D before 4E and its "everybody must contribute equally all the time" mentality came around. If D&D Next will be an unifying edition, please give little Timmy the tools to not suck unintentionally, but allow me to pick fast runner instead of power attack, if I want to play a reluctant warrior.

Cheers!

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's important to include simple feats that do not add character options nor make them more complex. Not everyone wants nifty tricks; there should be a reasonably bland and not too powerful (nor too weak) alternative to let people that don't want to fully customize all the mechanics just pick em.

If you don't want nifty tricks, why should you have to sift through a huge list to find the best set of Boring Bonus Feats? There should be an alternative to feats that just gives you a set of flat bonuses. Boom, done. Call it the Boring Fighter Option*.

Since it's a package deal, there's no worry about people cherry-picking the best "+X to Y" feats and piling them all together. If the designers can get the bonus level right, a Boring Fighter and a feat-based fighter can coexist without trouble. Everybody's happy.

[SIZE=-2]*For design purposes only. I am not advocating that the term "Boring Fighter Option" should be used in the rulebooks.[/SIZE]

 

[DEFCON 1]

Those characters are great to roleplay, and they were part of D&D before 4E and its "everybody must contribute equally all the time" mentality came around.

You could easily suck in 4E too. You just took a 14 or even 12 in your primary ability score. Voila! You were a crappy combatant, and you had plenty of points left over to buy up the ability scores that affected the skills you roleplayed with.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you don't want nifty tricks, why should you have to sift through a huge list to find the best set of Boring Bonus Feats? There should be an alternative to feats that just gives you a set of flat bonuses. Boom, done. Call it the Boring Fighter Option*.

Isn't that exactly what Themes are meant to do?

You buy the Boring Fighter Option Theme and you get a series of flat bonus feats that make your fighter better at fighting. No sifting involved.

Sure... that also means the powergamers out there CAN sift through all the boring flat bonus feats and attempt to build their own 'super-themes' that supposedly make them Uber-Fighters... but if the designers have done their job... EVEN THAT won't really make the character all that more powerful that the regular Boring Fighter Option themed character.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

1. On Traits

I've never felt the need for siloing, but I understand the problem it's attempting to solve. Choosing feats for combat is fun, interesting, and obvious in benefit. By separating the exploration and interaction elements, a player that enjoys the combat choices can choose non-combat options without feeling buyer's remorse. Since I don't feel there's a significant downside to separating out traits, I'm beginning to think it's the right choice.

2. On Feats

I'm also slowly coming to a conclusion on what feats should be, and what they shouldn't.

Feats should only represent highly focused training. Each feat represents a particular type of action, like tripping an opponent or catching arrows.

Feats should never require or directly effect a class feature. Keep all class options with the class. Instead, feats only interact with the core mechanics.

Feats should avoid granting completely new types of actions. You shouldn't need a feat to power attack, sunder a weapon, trip an opponent, or throw dirt in someone's eyes. Instead, a feat makes these things easier to do and grant optional effects because you've practiced that particular maneuver. The reason this rule says "avoid granting" instead of "never grant" is that some actions simply require specialized training to pull off. This is particularly true of magical actions.