Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EditorBFG" data-source="post: 3678662" data-attributes="member: 24719">The thing is, in the current draft, humans already get a bonus feat, a trained skill, and an extra talent from their class. Now, if you think that extra talent should come from any class, I'm don't think I agree, but maybe I'm wrong about that-- it's certainly debatable.For the human stat bump, I had a thought. What if we add a talent that allows a +2 to any ability score, but only if you have not previously gained an ability score increase from a talent. We make that talent available to all classes, though at a slightly higher level than the static racial stat bumps. So, humans get the same stat bump as other races, just a couple levels later, and other races have the option of choosing not to get their racial stat raise, in order to raise a score of their choice later on.(Thinking about it, maybe the above would be better as a feat, available at, say 7th level?)Between this, an extra feat, an extra talent, and an extra  trained skill, humans should be fine. But feel free to voice disagreement.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Regarding Plus Feats:I did a lot of looking into Plus feats when I work on Talent Tree Compendium and Fantastic Classes. A lot. You'll notice that the talents offered by Plus feats aren't always simply the ones with no prereqs. I tried to figure out the precise logic behind Plus feats and what talents were placed into them.My final conclusion was that the game designers were compensating for failures made in the original talent designs. Basically, they realized that some Modern talents were a bit too weak (an error the SAGA designers corrected in their game), and so they threw in something to help base classes get farther up certain trees. This should not be taken as an assertion of talent value-- many talents are much better than the average feat, and many talents are weaker. A talent is not "half" a feat.Plus Feats appeared in Fantastic Classes, but only to help simulate the "front-loaded" nature of D&D base classes in Modern. And I was very careful to limit what talents each Plus Feat should grant, to prevent abuse. But Fantasy Concepts should have no need of Plus Feats, nor are they an accurate measure of relative potency.To my mind, the difference between Talents and Feats has nothing to do with relative power, and everything to do with who can acquire them. As Patryn pointed out, Feats are abilities that any character willing to meet the prerequisites can get, while Talents are abilities only certain classes or races can acquire. And that should be the only real difference-- yes, feats are acquired more often (a 20th level character in this system will have 19 feats and 11 talents) but I don't think each talent must be judged to make sure it is more powerful than a feat would be. And to be honest, even judging the relative power of one feat versus another or one talent versus another is not always exact anyhow, yet alone talents versus featsThis brings up the earlier discussion of talents that grant a feat. In some ways, yes, you are using something you only get 11 of to buy something you get 19 of, but at early levels it can be quite useful, especially if the talent lets you bypass prerequisites. Also, sometimes useful talents are designed to expand or build on a feat's abilities in a way that only a certain class should be able to. In such a case, PCs looking to acquire those talents may find it useful to have multiple avenues to acquire the base feat; those talents can then be designed have that feat as a prerequisite, rather than the talent that grants the feat. That way, those who want to acquire the feat at an odd-numbered level can do so, but those who choose not to spend a feat on a talent are not penalized; both can acquire the talents that build on that feat. In any case, a talent that only grants a feat should never be a prerequisite for any talent.Regarding the Fighter/Mage "damage gap":Should we make the weapon damage bonus all characters receive half base attack bonus (rounded up) instead of half character level? This would make it so a fighter with longsword is that much better than a mage with a longsword, which might help reward the fighter's specialization as he progresses in levels.</blockquote>

Verification