D&D 5E Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e

[JamesonCourage]

Thing is, I don't know that they should be on the same schedule, if by schedule you mean you get to choose one trait, and one feat at the same time. To get two choices to add at the same time creates bloat on the character sheet and perhaps too many choices at once. Perhaps you could get them at the same rate, but not on precisely the same schedule.

That's basically what I meant when I said "if they're both every level, of both every other level, etc., I'd be okay with it." You get them at the same rate. Wording it more clear, thanks.

Personally I'm not even sure if getting them at the same rate is a necessity, but I'm open to exploring the idea.
Here's why:
Since they do interact with the rules in different manners, I'm not sure it makes sense to say 1 talent or trait is equal to one feat. You can still get the option to take a one of those in exception to a feat, but I'm not sure it would create an awful disastrous scenario for most people (as it foreseeably might for JamesonCourage's group) if they were on different schedules and at different rates. After all, if you're choosing 1 trait instead of a feat, and if you get traits at a slower rate than a feat, then that extra trait you're choosing is even more valuable.

Yeah, it does in a sense, but by being acquired at the same rate, switching out one for the other would make them easy to do. You could do whole background / specialties or feats / "talents" with ease. It's intuitive. It still achieves the baseline siloing that people want. It just seems like the best option, so far. Though I'm open to change that opinion if I see a good argument for different rates.

I'm nearly positive I'll be met with disagreement on this point though. I'm open to the idea of receiving traits at the same rate as feats, but I'd want to see how it affects complexity and ease of entry to the game.

Sorry for disagreeing (kind of)! How it affects complexity and ease of entry to the game are both things that should be kept in mind while designing feats / specialties / backgrounds / "talents", of course. But, as I said, keeping feats / "talents" on the same rate with the ability to easily swap them is intuitive. If it presents a design problem, then yeah, maybe it shouldn't be used. What could cause a problem? Let's look at your next post...

Also, to try and get this thread back on track. What would good design guidelines be for a non-combat feat?

I think it's been touched on that just a skill bonus is a little weak-sauce.

There are a variety of ways to handle this, of course. And maybe they should all be touched on or used. My main preference here is to use skills. That means a skill bonus is nice, but not necessarily sufficient. I'd like a lot of skills, personally, each with multiple uses fleshed out.

For example, in my RPG, I have the Leadership skill. There are rules for the following uses: Command Army, Gather Information, Grant Bonus in Combat, Inspire Troops, Rally Followers, Social Tact, Spread Rumors, and Win Over Crowd. Each of these uses are mechanically presented, and you can use these uses of the skill to achieve certain ends (or fail trying). (You can, of course, use the skill in ways not presented.)

With this approach, you can give a lot of different things with skills. Maybe the rumors you start last a lot longer, or maybe you're better at winning over a crowd. And so on. You can do the same for a host of skills, and really start differentiating the Negotiators from characters with the Negotiation skill. and that's not touching on giving advantage, always able to take a 10 (my players love this one), etc.

If you're looking for something more story-driven, you can obviously give various other rewards. You can take a Fantasy Craft approach and look at their Renown system (favors, holdings, contacts, etc.). You can increase social status, add reputations that can be improved, look at the 3.5 Leadership feat, allow special contraptions to be made, etc. Nothing wrong with those kind of mechanics if you're into them.

I don't know. It seems like there's a lot of room to move around in the non-combat area. As always, play what you like

 

[Ratskinner]

You know those NPCs you mentioned earlier? Sometimes people think they'd be fun to play. Sages, inventors, courtiers, etc. How many characters from Game of Thrones (or Song of Ice and Fire) look like they'd be fun to play? To me, a lot of them. Sure, they include combatants (Jon Snow, Eddard, Jaime, Bronn, Jorah), but they also include people who are certainly not combatants (the Spider, Catelyn, Daenerys, Samwell, Maester Luwin).
<snippage>
However, trust me on this, games like Fate and Burning Wheel aren't my style. Just because I don't feel like every character should be inherently wed to all three pillars (not just combat), it doesn't mean that I enjoy more dramatist games. I don't, when it comes to fantasy games. When it comes to scratching the non-3/3/3 itch, though, as I said, we just use my RPG.

That's cool. I was suggesting it because those other games have more relative focus on the types of things those characters do. I personally don't find FATE as Dramatist/Narrativist as some others do, but...that may be because I've played some pretty deep-end Narrativist games.

I said that if they're not on the same schedule, then I'll have an objection. If they're both every level, of both every other level, etc., I'd be okay with it.

I'm not trying to be combative when I say this, but did you jump into this conversation and disagree with me without reading the back and forth I had?

No, something about your wording in that back-n-forth threw me.

But, the reason that I'm invested in this point, is that I'm part of a group that has the same take on it. My players have complained when getting automatic hit points at every level in 3.5. It didn't fit what they wanted from the game.

That seems....very odd to me. Although, (not that I'm trying to keep tossing alternative games out for you try) I did run a first edition Mutants and Masterminds game once, and that would be right along these lines. (I dunno about the later editions, but the 1e M&M kept pretty close to D20 stuff.)

If you make Feats = Combat, and Talents = Non-Combat, and they run on similar tracks, and you make an optional rule that you can switch one for the other, you've essentially made them into one pile. That's fine with me. I want that. You've basically done the same thing as labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Non-Combat Feats." Make them separated, sure. Assume that you're getting an equal number of each, sure. The baseline is 3/3/3. But, let people swap the moving parts around to fit their campaign.

I also might disagree with your use of "viable", since I'm guessing that heavily depends on the type of campaign you run.

Sure, and I say this as someone who did plenty of it during the 2e era. At some point, though, you're just kind of using D&D as a nomenclature for some pretty free-form RP. Which is fine, but really doesn't require much in the way of rules.

I think I'd rather know more about the relative constructions of the non-combat advancement options before I declared certainty about having them on the same schedule as the combat feats. If it makes sense, great, if not, then I don't think you really gain a whole awful lot from getting them together. I'd rather see good, solid non-combat advancements, and if that means a separate schedule (default, anyway) so be it.

Label the option as such. Make people informed. Don't force your style, though, when it should be easy enough to allow them their own. I'm in strong support of saying "taking this will lead to these results." Awesome, that's great to include. But, I'd really rather not hear "you can't take this because it would lead to the results you're looking for." That's exactly what I don't want to see, you know?

Sure. No problem there. (Although how they plan to fit all that stuff in a reasonably-sized set of books...well that's their problem, I guess.)

 

[Derren]

Wouldn't this best be in a module as opposed to part of the core rules upon their release?

-O

Why?
Its only "best" when you design the RPG in a way that combat is more important or "core" than everything else. And imo thats exactly what D&D has to get away from.
As soon as the system is designed that non-combat is equally important than combat, then there is no reason why combat characters are better suited for it than non-combat characters.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, something about your wording in that back-n-forth threw me.

Sorry about that; probably my fault.

That seems....very odd to me. Although, (not that I'm trying to keep tossing alternative games out for you try) I did run a first edition Mutants and Masterminds game once, and that would be right along these lines. (I dunno about the later editions, but the 1e M&M kept pretty close to D20 stuff.)

We also like M&M 2e, but it wouldn't ever take over our Fantasy itch. Again, we use my RPG to scratch the "want to play a lot more concepts" itch. But yeah. Sometimes, to fit your concept, you want to be bad at something. My players have also lowered Con to 5 and Str to 3, so... yeah. It's not a "you need bad stats to roleplay." It's a "I really like the idea of being a sickly old bard who goes out and does stuff anyways because he feels like he wasted his youth" and "I love my super weak, really fat inventor with a wife he constantly bickers with." It's all just part of building a concept, you know? (And having the mechanics match the fiction is important to us.)

Sure, and I say this as someone who did plenty of it during the 2e era. At some point, though, you're just kind of using D&D as a nomenclature for some pretty free-form RP. Which is fine, but really doesn't require much in the way of rules.

I missed something... how does the part of my post that you quoted lead you to this conclusion?

I think I'd rather know more about the relative constructions of the non-combat advancement options before I declared certainty about having them on the same schedule as the combat feats. If it makes sense, great, if not, then I don't think you really gain a whole awful lot from getting them together. I'd rather see good, solid non-combat advancements, and if that means a separate schedule (default, anyway) so be it.

Agree about the "so be it" sentiment, if it truly is better that way. However, when designing a game, if the goal is to make two pieces easily and intuitively swappable, it might be best to try to design with that in mind. In this case, that'd mean acquiring specialty and background pieces at the same rate.

Sure. No problem there. (Although how they plan to fit all that stuff in a reasonably-sized set of books...well that's their problem, I guess.)

You can fit quite a bit in, from my experience in formatting my RPG. But yeah, classes / races / specialties / backgrounds / etc. all take up room. Then again, my RPG has a 50 page "Running a Game" section, the skills section is over 50 pages long, Magic is just over 50 pages, Combat is just over 30, etc., and it's still only 325 pages long. We'll see how they do. As always, play what you like

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Also, to try and get this thread back on track. What would good design guidelines be for a non-combat feat?

I think it's been touched on that just a skill bonus is a little weak-sauce.

This depends a little on how skills end up working, but the guidelines would be the same as for combat feats - you have to change how the rules work for a given situation, or enable some new ability.

So, if searching for traps uses d20+Int, but passive perception uses 10+Wis (as in some cases in the playtest adventure), perhaps 'Danger Sense' would make you ever-alert, and allow you to use 10+Int for your passive perception. You'll notice traps, secret doors and the like with ease. Maybe a Flirtatious feat could give you advantage when interacting with the right persons. Fun for roleplay and useful on many occasions. Perhaps there could be a feat that allows you to always reach a window, platform, rope, whatever there might be, so long as it's within Dex feet and there are structures nearby to climb, jump and run across (Assassin's Creed style). Perhaps a feat could allow you to make a knowledge check to see if you know the true name of a demon, and then allow you to parlay for five minutes. Heck, let's go really crazy, and say that an expert chef can cook a meal three times a day that restores HP (technically useful in combat, but much more obviously a roleplay feat).

 

[Ratskinner]

I missed something... how does the part of my post that you quoted lead you to this conclusion?

It doesn't, directly. Its just my experience with groups and attempts (a lot of 'em back in the '90s) to play a game outside the game's native comfort zone. Its most especially relevant to games like D&D with strong simulationist components.

Agree about the "so be it" sentiment, if it truly is better that way. However, when designing a game, if the goal is to make two pieces easily and intuitively swappable, it might be best to try to design with that in mind. In this case, that'd mean acquiring specialty and background pieces at the same rate.

I'm saying my preference is that the goal of having really good, solid, simple, non-combat goodies should trump that secondary goal of making them easily or directly swappable with the combat feats. If the "swap" feat/specialty has to modify this somehow to make it workable...I'd rather that than have a lesss-than-stellar "Talent" section in order to be directly swappable with Feats. (Assuming, of course, that we'll have some kind of Talent or background advancement scheme at all.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

It doesn't, directly.

Oh, okay.

I'm saying my preference is that the goal of having really good, solid, simple, non-combat goodies should trump that secondary goal of making them easily or directly swappable with the combat feats. If the "swap" feat/specialty has to modify this somehow to make it workable...I'd rather that than have a lesss-than-stellar "Talent" section in order to be directly swappable with Feats. (Assuming, of course, that we'll have some kind of Talent or background advancement scheme at all.)

Yep, this looks like where we diverge. I'm really not on board with having a "less-than-stellar" non-combat section compared to a combat section. In my experience, it's a lot easier to design for combat. Why? I don't know. That's a good question. So, what I'm asking for isn't easy.

Want to know an easy way? Make them all feats, and label them appropriately. You can say "only combat feats" and I can pick and choose from both. Again, win/win, in my eyes.

Now, I think I'll probably hear "...shouldn't have to sacrifice combat to RP..." or something along those lines. Well, people have said "you can just tell your players to grab two backgrounds! Done!" Well, why wouldn't you just say "all your feats are normal, and you get a non-combat feat once every 3 levels" or whatever? Seems just as easy as what's been suggested to me.

Really, though, if they just put the two on different tracks that you acquired at the same rate, with clear optional rules on how to swap them (and the consequences of those actions), wouldn't that work just fine for most groups? Where's the objection to that style? And, if there is none inherently, couldn't you design the game with that in mind?

I get that it's easier said than done. I know, I've designed my RPG. And revised it. And Revised it. And repeat. And then tweaked it. And again. And again. It's a hard process. But, it's a workable process, and having a lot more brainpower working on it over there is bound to speed it up. I think they can pull off the dual-track progression. And, if there's no inherent reason to object to it, why not express preference for it? I mean, I get the "not if it's overall bad for the game" feeling, but, that's true for every aspect of the game design process, isn't it? As always, play what you like

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm saying my preference is that the goal of having really good, solid, simple, non-combat goodies should trump that secondary goal of making them easily or directly swappable with the combat feats. If the "swap" feat/specialty has to modify this somehow to make it workable...I'd rather that than have a lesss-than-stellar "Talent" section in order to be directly swappable with Feats. (Assuming, of course, that we'll have some kind of Talent or background advancement scheme at all.)

Since we ARE talking about swapping apples for oranges here, I can't really imagine why doling out feats and talents at the same rate would be difficult.

Are the talents so wimpy that you need one every level? Make them three times as good and you're set! Are they so powerful you only get one every ten levels? Tone them down!

 

[Ratskinner]

Since we ARE talking about swapping apples for oranges here, I can't really imagine why doling out feats and talents at the same rate would be difficult.

Are the talents so wimpy that you need one every level? Make them three times as good and you're set! Are they so powerful you only get one every ten levels? Tone them down!

Well, that's just it. We don't really know anything about them, especially since we're talking about a supposition from this thread that we've seen no evidence of whatever. Especially considering Bounded Accuracy...I don't think we'll be seeing "+2 to skill X" (at least I hope not). I think we're more likely to see things like "You gain advantage when making an attribute X check under condition Y" or "Circumstance Y no longer imposes disadvantage on your X checks." Its a lot harder to make those "three times as good." I would also expect some (perhaps lesser) advantages like the backgrounds offer, but who knows.

I would truly not be surprised if no such system appeared at all, but instead guidelines were given about letting role-play results work out: "Got knighted? Congratulations, you now have access to the ...."

 

[Ratskinner]

Yep, this looks like where we diverge. I'm really not on board with having a "less-than-stellar" non-combat section compared to a combat section. In my experience, it's a lot easier to design for combat. Why? I don't know. That's a good question. So, what I'm asking for isn't easy.

I think you misunderstood. I want stellar non-combat support as well. I don't consider the "same schedule" part necessary for that. If its stellar and aligns, great. If its stellar and doesn't align, great. If it aligns and isn't stellar, not good.

As far as designing for non-combat...I dunno. It certainly seems to be the case. IMO, there is something fundamental and yet elusive about differences between combat and all other rpg interaction spheres. Non-combat, especially social interaction, seems resist codification in a way that combat doesn't. The only games that handle them the same way seem to be rules-light (or rules lighter, anyway).