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

[Dausuul]

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.

It's that last bit that's the problem. WotC has not, historically, done a very good job of forestalling the powergamers--though I admit they did a better job in 4E.

I'm not a big fan of themes being conglomerations of feats, but if we're going to have such themes, I think the solution here would be to have the feats from Boring Themes be mutually incompatible, perhaps based on class*. Thus, there is no option to cherry-pick. You can take the whole Boring Theme for your class, or half the Boring Theme and half real feats, or all real feats, but you can't pluck the best features from each Boring Theme and stack them on top of each other.

[size=-2]*And no sneaking around this restriction with multiclassing, either.[/size]

 

[billd91]

It's that last bit that's the problem. WotC has not, historically, done a very good job of forestalling the powergamers--though I admit they did a better job in 4E.

I'm increasingly sympathetic to the idea that the by-products of trying to completely curtail the powergamers are too expensive. You're not going to keep powergamers from thinking of the numbers, making the DPR calculations, and otherwise redlining the system until it feels broken. And the more you try to neutralize that way of thinking, the less freedom you leave more moderate players and GMs to tailor the characters to what they want to play.

 

[Scribble]

I think it might be better to just curtail feats into a smaller roll. IE they add smaller functions like the ability to use a sword, or armor without a penalty, but no added powers, or attack types.

 

[Ratskinner]

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, o<snippage>
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.

Oh, how I would like to XP you.... Smack on. I think my dismay at reading that was so profound that my mind blanked it out.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Feats hit all three Pillars? I like.
Feats are reduced in number both intially and incrementally? I like.

So take this concept down a new route so that it doesn't seem weird that Power Attack offers a combat damage boost, an Intimidation bonus, and a bonus bashing down doors. Expand the scope of a feat and change the name appropriately. Instead of Power Attack, how about a feat called Brash Warrior? That is a feat that sounds worthy of bonuses in all three pillars, IMO.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

"My friend Ian, who is not a min-max sort of player, chose for his paladin the Fast Runner feat at 1st level. He never mentioned it. He never talked about it. He just made that choice and played the game. At some point, someone asked him about his feat. He revealed it and earned a lot of gentle (and not-so-gentle) ribbing and laughter from his fellow players. By the rules, there’s nothing wrong with this choice. Nothing at all! In fact, it was a choice that supported his character concept. Sure, he probably would have been better off with some sort of expertise feat or damage booster or something that would let him win D&D. But he didn’t. And that’s great."

This doesn't sound so bad to me. I worry about the mindset that we have to remove all possibility that other players might judge your choices in the game.

When something is deemed "better", what is it being compared to?

I want feats that I can take to fit the concept of my character and one that can be of use elsewhere in the game.

If we get another combat type game where the best choice is the one that gives you the best combat advantage then I am walking away from D&D.

 

[billd91]

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.

Even your idea here has problems because it means you're deliberately building something to be sub-optimal that then requires a feat to be an equal strategy. Bring on the calls of feat tax!

So what if feats are giving people minor bonuses to stuff they're already doing? Shouldn't a PC be able to say "I've got a special talent in this particular thing," pay for the improvement, and actually be better than someone who didn't pay that cost?

Plus, these sorts of feats are really easy to manage. You get the feat. You add something on the character sheet. You never need to worry about that feat again or try to remember another situational advantage out of 10 or more that may crop up in the course of an adventure.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

...

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.

We have all seen the model of what feats should look like. They are published in 4e and labeled "utility powers." Most provide new abilities. Some (like the rogue stealth enhancing powers) allow the use of old powers in new ways. A number of at-will class abilities in the Essentials books could also be turned into combat feats. A push rider on a basic attack seems like a reasonable combat feat to me.

These feats all meet the critical standard of being useful and important enough to be worth keeping track of.

That having been said, I don't see how creating half-decent feats get around the issue of wanting a dedicated silo for each pillar. Even if each feat, skill or trait is interesting, I still want my players to select skills and traits without feeling they will be short changed in combat.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Must spread XP, but I'll extend that thought another notch: The reason they keep trying to add +1 to this and +2 to that is because they keep reducing things down to a bare d20 roll. That's why 3E/4E skills are so sterile, and skill challenges have so little purchase mechanically. (You can narrate into these skills much more, if inclined as I am, but that is something you bring to the system, not something the system brings out in you.)

I guess that could be a "chicken or egg" argument. It could be that cutting out the interesting options for feats as you have described them has led to reducing things down to a d20 roll. Or it could be that trying to reduce down to the roll automatically tends to cut out such options. Maybe by now, the whole thing feeds on itself, and it doesn't matter where it starts.

 

[billd91]

Must spread XP, but I'll extend that thought another notch: The reason they keep trying to add +1 to this and +2 to that is because they keep reducing things down to a bare d20 roll. That's why 3E/4E skills are so sterile, and skill challenges have so little purchase mechanically.

At some point, there needs to be a decision rule for resolving tasks. What are your alternatives? Roll against some kind of target. DM ruling. Auto-success or fail because of some characteristic of the PC. And... what else? With the first, you've got your sterile claim. With the second you've got the "Mother, may I?" complaint. And with the 3rd you're emphasizing the build even more.