D&D 5E Do we know if they are keeping the 20 Natural score cap? What about expanded backgrounds?

[Mistwell]

I hope they expanded the feats list and balanced them more.

What did you find particularly unbalanced about them?

What I am looking for is more of a "free special" feat at level 1. That is more of a pre-character development(background speciality). Something that you wouldn't pickup as quickly as a feat.

Guess we'll have to wait for PHB.

Let them swap a key racial ability for a feat?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm curious why you thought the characters needed another feat or were lacking at low levels. Was it that they didn't have enough to do? Didn't feel unique? Felt underpowered? I found that at second level the characters I've seen from my players so far had plenty of options to make themselves unique, and had plenty of choices for what to do. Now admittedly its not the power overload of 4th edition, but that is not what this edition was intended to be.

- Wraith

Not everyone who played 4E felt it had "power overload" at low levels. In fact, I'm fairly sure that, at low levels, that was a rare opinion even among 4E's detractors. So that seems a strange thing to say (putting it charitably).

More to the point, you don't get a Feat until 4-6 depending on class (or 4-5, I forget), and you pretty much "have" to use that on +2 to your main attribute, and then the next is 8 or so, which is practically a campaign for many groups. So it's more than reasonable, I feel to offer a bit more customization at L1 or 2, as an optional rule.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let them swap a key racial ability for a feat?

Or just give all PCs one. 5E's balance won't be damaged by that (just make it Feat-only, not attributes), esp. as many PCs will spend it on non-combat stuff.

(I dislike races missing defining abilities though!)

 

[Bryk]

Or just give all PCs one. 5E's balance won't be damaged by that (just make it Feat-only, not attributes), esp. as many PCs will spend it on non-combat stuff.

(I dislike races missing defining abilities though!)

That's pretty much what I did.

However since I used 30 point buy, I did also allow ability score improvement so players can start with an 18 if they want.(non half orc - strength).

I'd still rather it be something more unique than a feat, so it isn't instead of "well this allows me to grab this extra feat early, then I can get this one late", but instead more of a "this one specifically helps with the direction of my character and the synergy as how I want this character to grow".

I feel the latter can only happen if it's tied to the background, all players only get one, and you ALSO can't acquire any of them later. Otherwise it all becomes part of a build, and you just ultimately get an extra feat for your "build".

That coupled with the lacking options early, especially for non-beginners, it just adds up.

I rather not just jump into the, "well let's just start at level 3 or 4!!!"

 

[Zaran]

I want a feat at level 1 because I feel like every Level 1 will be the same as every other one without it. Background wouldn't do enough to change that.

For instance, if a wizard is really good at fire spells, I want to be able to show that at first level. Not at 3rd level when they can pick Evocation (and then they would still be only as good as any other Evoker).

The same goes for fighters. If someone wants to be better at swords than their peers they shouldn't have to wait until 4th level before they can get a feat that helps demonstrate that.

On Twitter, Mearls said that a feat can be taken at first level if the player gave up some of their racial bonus. That's because they feel like feats HAVE to be instead of stat increases. I've decided I would be ok with that.

There are things I do not like though. Like how Fighters have access to more stat increases. Or that we are all stuck with very basic characters at first level. I do not want to start my campaigns at 3rd level just to have a little crunch in my character creation.

 

[the Jester]

More to the point, you don't get a Feat until 4-6 depending on class (or 4-5, I forget), and you pretty much "have" to use that on +2 to your main attribute, and then the next is 8 or so, which is practically a campaign for many groups. So it's more than reasonable, I feel to offer a bit more customization at L1 or 2, as an optional rule.

I see no reason whatsoever that you have to spend that first feat (or, really, any feat) on ability increases. Flat math more or less eliminates the necessity of "keeping up with the Joneses" that the last couple of editions have had.

 

[Bryk]

I see no reason whatsoever that you have to spend that first feat (or, really, any feat) on ability increases. Flat math more or less eliminates the necessity of "keeping up with the Joneses" that the last couple of editions have had.

Flat math? Not sure what you are talking about, but attack bonus from players and monsters scales early and plateaus off. (players still get proficiency over time, but outside of that).

SO it isn't flat at all. If you have +5 to STR, DEX, or your Spell stat, it is huge over having a +3. 10% increased chance to hit is fairly significant. Is that what you are trying to say? That each one is a flat 5%?

Regardless of how you spin it, that 5% each is fairly big.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see no reason whatsoever that you have to spend that first feat (or, really, any feat) on ability increases. Flat math more or less eliminates the necessity of "keeping up with the Joneses" that the last couple of editions have had.

+1 to hit and damage (and to save DCs) on any class regularly rolling those is a huge deal. The flat math is not so flat that it somehow avoids that (indeed, I don't think that'd be physically possible).

 

[the Jester]

That +1 to hit and damage is nice, yes.

So are the feats we've seen.

Again, I would dispute the notion that the ability bonus is a must-have early on; I really don't see it that way, and my players have so far been fairly split on whether it's worth giving up a feat for the ability boni or vice-versa.

YMMV, but saying you "MUST" take that first +1/+1 is simply not true.

 

[Wraithdrit]

Not everyone who played 4E felt it had "power overload" at low levels. In fact, I'm fairly sure that, at low levels, that was a rare opinion even among 4E's detractors. So that seems a strange thing to say (putting it charitably).

I've had more than one novice player sit looking at all the power cards they had arrayed before them and go, "Um, can you explain this to me again?"

That being said, I've not run 4th in a long time, so my comment should be taken with a large grain of salt, heh.