Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats are spells...does that mean fewer classes?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6119823" data-attributes="member: 6689464"><p>Well for starters "Warlock/sorcerer is a wizard with this one speciffic feat chain" is a big no sell for me (and I guess for many other sorcerer and warlock players out there), but it isn't just gut reaction here, it has a lot of big problems associated:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Warlocks and sorcerers are more apealing to new players and veteran players who like simplicity and ease of play and character creation. Having them being reverse engineered from the inherently more complex wizard defeats that purpose and reduces the appeal they could have to their players, also remember they said feats weren't going to be class speciffic.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It sets them as too similar to each other, if one problem striked 3.5 warlocks and 4e sorcerers was the limited options to get tematically diverse characters. A set deal of feats would force us to have exactly one flavor of each one, or force the feats to be extremely complex and open ended (again another strike versus simplicity)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It goes against the classes story, making them extremely rigid when their stories are actually more flexible than wizard's. All a warlock has to somehow shoehorn on his/her story is "me or someone else on my behalf made a deal in exchange for power, typically but not always involving giving away my soul" and the sorcerer's is even more flexible "my tenth degree cousin five times removed was a dragon/outsider/thing" or "I was born under a blue moon/on a unknowingly relevant cosmic place/ blessed by luck". meanwhile wizard's story is always "I had to spend time studying the thing"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It risks warlocks and sorcerers being way more weaker than a run of the mill wizard, since score increases also will come from the feat system, not only all sorcerers and warlock will have the exact same feat chain, all of them will be shut down from improving their save DCs and overal competency, a fact made the more egreggious because they have always been MAD (Warlocks a little less so), so that goes against the principles of the new feat implementation (more mad = more feats). Just having a different number of relevant scores means they should have a different feat progression.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In fact the past argument applies for many classes (in additon to what a fighter needs, a ranger needs Wis, a Paladin Cha, The barbarian needs less in comparison), and let's not get started on bards.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Even if it was a more open ended group of feats, that wouldn't make things any better, a player would have to worry about keeping base competence on the so called class and be forced to find and take the necessary feat taxes to remain a valid sorcerer or warlock. The most likely result is the player would just give up and try to convince the group back into 3.x, 4e, PF or move into any of the inevitable 4e clones.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Very similar arguments could be made for players of bards, warlords and the like. Want to have them into your game? well give them the classes they need to play, don't force them to waste customization resources in order to get a very generic member of the class.</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6119823, member: 6689464"] Well for starters "Warlock/sorcerer is a wizard with this one speciffic feat chain" is a big no sell for me (and I guess for many other sorcerer and warlock players out there), but it isn't just gut reaction here, it has a lot of big problems associated: [LIST] [*]Warlocks and sorcerers are more apealing to new players and veteran players who like simplicity and ease of play and character creation. Having them being reverse engineered from the inherently more complex wizard defeats that purpose and reduces the appeal they could have to their players, also remember they said feats weren't going to be class speciffic. [*]It sets them as too similar to each other, if one problem striked 3.5 warlocks and 4e sorcerers was the limited options to get tematically diverse characters. A set deal of feats would force us to have exactly one flavor of each one, or force the feats to be extremely complex and open ended (again another strike versus simplicity) [*]It goes against the classes story, making them extremely rigid when their stories are actually more flexible than wizard's. All a warlock has to somehow shoehorn on his/her story is "me or someone else on my behalf made a deal in exchange for power, typically but not always involving giving away my soul" and the sorcerer's is even more flexible "my tenth degree cousin five times removed was a dragon/outsider/thing" or "I was born under a blue moon/on a unknowingly relevant cosmic place/ blessed by luck". meanwhile wizard's story is always "I had to spend time studying the thing" [*]It risks warlocks and sorcerers being way more weaker than a run of the mill wizard, since score increases also will come from the feat system, not only all sorcerers and warlock will have the exact same feat chain, all of them will be shut down from improving their save DCs and overal competency, a fact made the more egreggious because they have always been MAD (Warlocks a little less so), so that goes against the principles of the new feat implementation (more mad = more feats). Just having a different number of relevant scores means they should have a different feat progression. [*]In fact the past argument applies for many classes (in additon to what a fighter needs, a ranger needs Wis, a Paladin Cha, The barbarian needs less in comparison), and let's not get started on bards. [*]Even if it was a more open ended group of feats, that wouldn't make things any better, a player would have to worry about keeping base competence on the so called class and be forced to find and take the necessary feat taxes to remain a valid sorcerer or warlock. The most likely result is the player would just give up and try to convince the group back into 3.x, 4e, PF or move into any of the inevitable 4e clones. [*]Very similar arguments could be made for players of bards, warlords and the like. Want to have them into your game? well give them the classes they need to play, don't force them to waste customization resources in order to get a very generic member of the class. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats are spells...does that mean fewer classes?
Top