Feats are going to happen

[Oofta]

Yep. It's more of a marketing and PR campaign than a proper play test. There might, maybe be some specific details honestly up in the air but the majority is likely set in stone. Probably was before they announced the "play test".

You mean they have a general idea of what they may want to do and when the vast majority of people agree they actually implement it? Those controlling monsters!

 

[DEFCON 1]

You mean they have a general idea of what they may want to do and when the vast majority of people agree they actually implement it? Those controlling monsters!

Heh heh... absolutely! They are taking the 2014 book and then re-writing some bits that people have been demanding they be re-written since the book was first published. And other bits that WotC doesn't know how they should be re-written or whether they should be re-written they are asking for gamers' opinions on the matter.

They are basically doing exactly what people have been demanding of them since the beginning-- "Fix the Ranger!" "Change Great Weapon Master!"-- but now all of a sudden the people are acting like this is some big problem that WotC's finally doing it.

Funny how all the caterwauling in 4E was that WotC was making large errata changes to classes and features and abilities merely in their errata documents and that got everyone p.o'd because it was all this stuff they'd have to "remember" and they wouldn't have it bound in their books... but now in 5E WotC * IS* putting all their errata changes into an actual book and people are still p.o'd. Whodathunkit? LOL.

"Yeah! But WotC is changing things I didn't want changed!" I hear the cry from the generic populace out there.

Yeah, well guess what? This book isn't for (general) YOU. Not (general) YOU specifically. (General) YOU don't get a say in which specific two dozen things (general) YOU think need to be amended because they don't work for (general) YOU at (general) YOUR table. You want stuff changed? Well, then if it's going to be in a book and not just a PDF that you'd have to print and then stuff papers in between the pages of your books... then (general) you have to accept that other's people's wish lists for changes are gonna get included in this new book as well. Everyone gets a say, and the most voices win. And you then can either buy the book when it comes out in two years, or you don't. Entirely up to (general) you.

 

[Oofta]

Heh heh... absolutely! They are taking the 2014 book and then re-writing some bits that people have been demanding they be re-written since the book was first published. And other bits that WotC doesn't know how they should be re-written or whether they should be re-written they are asking for gamers' opinions on the matter.

They are basically are doing exactly what people have been demanding of them since the beginning-- "Fix the Ranger!" "Change Great Weapon Master!"-- but now all of a sudden the people are acting like this is some big problem that WotC's finally doing it.

Funny how all the caterwauling in 4E was that WotC was making large errata changes to classes and features and abilities merely in their errata documents and that got everyone p.o'd because it was all this stuff they'd have to "remember" and they wouldn't have it bound in their books... but now in 5E WotC * IS* putting all their errata changes into an actual book and people are still p.o'd. Whodathunkit? LOL.

"Yeah! But WotC is changing things I didn't want changed!" I hear the cry from the generic populace out there.

Yeah, well guess what? This book isn't for (general) YOU. Not (general) YOU specifically. (General) YOU don't get a say in which specific two dozen things (general) YOU think need to be amended because they don't work for (general) YOU at (general) YOUR table. You want stuff changed? Well, then if it's going to be in a book and not just a PDF that you'd have to print and then stuff papers in between the pages of your books... then (general) you have to accept that other's people's wish lists for changes are gonna get included in this new book as well. Everyone gets a say, and the most voices win. And you then can either buy the book when it comes out in two years, or you don't. Entirely up to (general) you.

I just don't understand the seeming need for people to make WOTC out to be ... malevolent and controlling .... is the best description I can think of. Of course they have plans for the new release, that's what they do for a living. This particular option was extremely popular, about as close to approval from everyone that took the survey as you're likely to get. Saying that they've already decided everything is obviously not true, they've already backed down from a couple of options. But yes, they are probably a decent way down the line of designing the revised edition because they have to know what to release in the playtest packet. What is the other option? Throw out a question of how things should change? You'd get responses from a dedicated few that turned into multi-page arguments that we see here occasionally. Someone has to set the direction and ask if it's a good idea.

Yes, AL decided to give you two bonus feats to choose from. It's easier than saying "you get 3 extra skills or an extra HP every level". Feats are just a way of bundling a minor set of customization options. AL already allows feats, it has no impact on anyone outside of AL. The only thing it proves is that getting some not-very-powerful feats at first level was an incredibly popular idea and for one particular campaign (admittedly a widespread one) they're implementing an optional rule. Feat is not a four letter word. Umm ... wait ... well not a bad four letter word anyway.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just don't understand the seeming need for people to make WOTC out to be ... malevolent and controlling .... is the best description I can think of.

Cause it's easier to blame WotC than to accept the idea that perhaps their own opinions about what should and shouldn't be in the D&D game would be unpopular, if not and out hated by most other people.

It's a hard pill to swallow knowing that each of our bizarre, nitpicky, outlandish and esoteric ways of playing Dungeons & Dragons are thought of as crap by 99.99% of the other players out there in the world.

 

[Oofta]

Cause it's easier to blame WotC than to accept the idea that perhaps their own opinions about what should and shouldn't be in the D&D game would be unpopular, if not and out hated by most other people.

It's a hard pill to swallow knowing that each of our bizarre, nitpicky, outlandish and esoteric ways of playing Dungeons & Dragons are thought of as crap by 99.99% of the other players out there in the world.

Hey now, no reason to exaggerate. Maybe 99.97 or even 99.98%, but 99.99%? Way over the top!

I think WOTC should call me up personally to ask me how to design the game (the obvious answer is, of course, more cowbell) but that's not going to happen ... hold on ... my phone is ringing ... hmm ... I don't know anyone from Renton Washington so I'll just ignore it and delete the voice mails they leave without listening to them. Again. Dang telemarketers.

 

[Charlaquin]

They said in one of the videos that there will be a feat that is basically just an ASI at the appropriate level. It's a compromise for "optional feats". I don't play with feats but I'm good with this compromise.

That feat also appeared in the Expert Classes UA.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Maybe 99.97 or even 99.98%, but 99.99%? Way over the top!

Heh heh, really? With 99.99% I thought I was being generous!

That means about 1 in 10,000 people like what you like. So if 40,000 filled out the surveys... that would have to mean 3 other folks want exactly what you do in the 2024 books.

And do we really think that is at all possible?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hey now, no reason to exaggerate. Maybe 99.97 or even 99.98%, but 99.99%? Way over the top!

I think WOTC should call me up personally to ask me how to design the game (the obvious answer is, of course, more cowbell) but that's not going to happen ... hold on ... my phone is ringing ... hmm ... I don't know anyone from Renton Washington so I'll just ignore it and delete the voice mails they leave without listening to them. Again. Dang telemarketers.

I do have to ask, in light of the vehemence of yours and @DEFCON 1 's remarks...why does it matter to you that some people feel that way about WotC and/or the new edition? If you're right, those opinions are so MASSIVELY unpopular that there's no way that any of their terrible ideas hated by 99.99% of the gaming population are ever going to make it into the final product. So why does it matter to you?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I do have to ask, in light of the vehemence of yours and @DEFCON 1 's remarks...why does it matter to you that some people feel that way about WotC and/or the new edition? If you're right, those opinions are so MASSIVELY unpopular that there's no way that any of their terrible ideas hated by 99.99% of the gaming population are ever going to make it into the final product. So why does it matter to you?

It doesn't. But at the same time if someone comes onto the boards here and says "What WotC is doing is bad and they are stupid for even trying it!", then they have to accept the retort. That's what message boards are about.

It's not that hard. All of us can believe whatever we want about D&D, there's no issue with that. But if you don't want people to disagree with you... don't make your beliefs public. Keep them to yourself. That way you don't ever have to hear anyone tell you why your ideas might be bad too.

I respond to people here on EN World because it's fun. Especially when I think someone is wrong. But if I didn't want a response back myself, I wouldn't bother posting. Heck, I do that all the time... write a post going over why what someone said makes no sense or why WotC won't take their response to heart... and then I delete the post before uploading it. Because I realize it's an argument I don't want to bother getting into a discussion about when they rightly responded back.

And that's how this whole thing works. Only post stuff if you are comfortable with someone responding back to disagree.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Like floating ASIs, this has been a fait accompli for quite a while. A few years after the Anniversary Edition drops, I fully expect the next "midcourse correction" to be separate ASI and Feat progressions, because having to choose "isn't fair, and isn't fun".

 

[jasper]

If you implying that AL gets a significant amount of attention in rule design, you are not using the red headed step child aphorism correctly.

No, I am using it correctly. Let me rephrase. No too long. Let me sum up.
They are pushing free feats to Adventure League TODAY. So feats are going to happen.

 

[payn]

No, I am using it correctly. Let me rephrase. No too long. Let me sum up.
They are pushing free feats to Adventure League TODAY. So feats are going to happen.

Red headed step children do not get attention, they get neglect. You are still using it incorrectly. AL folks overwhelmingly want this change. Everyone overwhelmingly wants this change. So the proper use would be to say the folks that don't want this change are the red headed stepchildren of the community.

 

[Yaarel]

No, I am using it correctly. Let me rephrase. No too long. Let me sum up.
They are pushing free feats to Adventure League TODAY. So feats are going to happen.

So rather than being on the cutting edge, AL is on the "trailing edge".

So if AL is finally getting feats now, it makes certain that everyone else has already been going full speed with feats for a long time?

 

[jasper]

No the red haired stepchild is getting no attention but are being forced to eat what is being served. Gee, I didn't see you at the game Saturday night payn, or on the local facebook page, etc.

 

[payn]

No the red haired stepchild is getting no attention but are being forced to eat what is being served. Gee, I didn't see you at the game Saturday night payn, or on the local facebook page, etc.

If the implication is that your local group doesn't want the change, which means WotC is lying about the largely positive reaction to this, sorry but I dont believe that.

 

[Oofta]

I do have to ask, in light of the vehemence of yours and @DEFCON 1 's remarks...why does it matter to you that some people feel that way about WotC and/or the new edition? If you're right, those opinions are so MASSIVELY unpopular that there's no way that any of their terrible ideas hated by 99.99% of the gaming population are ever going to make it into the final product. So why does it matter to you?

There's this thing called humor? Hoping to get imaginary internet points for the win?

I think people get too hung up on the official rules while ignoring the fact that they are in control of the game at their table. D&D has always been a mass market product. It's designed to be reasonably flexible, but no game will ever make everyone happy. The idea that it's somehow a bad thing that the game continues to evolve in directions that any one individual may not care for deserves pushback. Feats are not going to destroy the game, the feats that will be allowed in AL will have an impact so small as to be virtually unnoticeable.

Besides, if everyone just agreed with every thread and every post it wouldn't be a discussion, it would be 100% echo chamber.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you're using the Facebook page to see what people are playing, I think I've found the problem with your data sampling.

 

[Horwath]

I pay attention to how much a feat is worth.

Feat = 8 Proficiencies
Half-Feat = 4 Proficiencies

That said. Some Skills are better than other Skills.

Perception = 2 Proficiencies
The "good skills" (Arcana, Athletics, Persuasion, Stealth, Survival) = 1½ Proficencies
The "normal skills" (Animal Handling, Deception, History, Insight, Nature, Slight of Hand) = 1 Proficiency
The "meh skills" (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Medicine, Performance) = ½ Proficiency
The "worthless skills" (Language, Musical Instrument) = 0 Proficiency

The UA playtest handles Languages perfectly: Common + Background Language + Choice of Language.

Make Musical Instruments free with Performance. Performance might have one style per Proficiency Bonus, including Song, Dance, Acting, Painting, etcetera, and Musical Instrument. Beef up the Performance skill, such as when crafting an item, use Performance to determine its esthetic appeal to improve its gp value.

Merge Athletics-Acrobatics into the same skill. In other words, use Athletics for all physical stunts.

Use Medicine to make Poison, and other applications.



Because the Class and the Background will have already selected Perception and most good skills, a Half-Feat should grant at least 3, preferably 4 skills.



I assume some Tool Proficiencies are better than others, but I havent looked closely at them yet.



Those feats like Prodigy that grant Skill Expertise are powerful and solid.

I like this,

But I rate feats at 12 pts.

then I can have 6 pts for half feat.
So, one half feat can be then split into 2, 3 or 4 parts. or 6?

Skill: 3pts
Perception: 4 pts
"Bad" skills: 2 pts
tool, language or weapon: 1 pt
expertise: 4pts
expertise perc: 5pts
expertise "bad" skill: 3pts
expertise tools: 2pts

armor category: 3pts
shield: 1pt


+1 ASI(max 20): 6pts
+1 ASI(lowers score): 3pts

save(dex, con, wis): 6pts
save(str,int, cha): 4pts

every class gets 5 ASIs.
5×12pts=60.
every level everyone gets 3 feat points
now 1st level feats are between half and full feats. say 10pts.
Now, 1st level 1D&D characters get 13 feat points(10 1st level feat and 3 pts per level)

fighters get 2 extra ASIs, that is 24 pts. split at 12 pts at 6 and 14th level. same as extra 12 pts for 10th level rogue.

 

[Horwath]

Like floating ASIs, this has been a fait accompli for quite a while. A few years after the Anniversary Edition drops, I fully expect the next "midcourse correction" to be separate ASI and Feat progressions, because having to choose "isn't fair, and isn't fun".

I belive the ALL feats will be made in the end as "half-feats" with floating ASI, so you will always get little ability increase and some extra features outside your class to pick and choose.

 

[jasper]

If you're using the Facebook page to see what people are playing, I think I've found the problem with your data sampling.

If only 46K people responded to a survey out of Millions and Millions of people who play, you have a problem with your data sampling.
Aka my group uses Facebook to communicate what is happening.