Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Carlsen" data-source="post: 5899384" data-attributes="member: 61749">1. On TraitsI'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 FeatsI'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 &quot;avoid granting&quot; instead of &quot;never grant&quot; is that some actions simply require specialized training to pull off. This is particularly true of magical actions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Carlsen, post: 5899384, member: 61749"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification