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, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6022634" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>You said explicitly. Go ahead and show me.</p><p></p><p>Which, in my mind, should be the same as PC rules. There should just be shortcuts for a DM to use to get close approximations on the fly, when he doesn't have much prep time, etc.</p><p></p><p>I base the personality on the way the player has been playing them. I use their mechanical abilities to map to their capabilities within the fiction. That is, if that PC is attacked, I'll use his mechanical defenses. "Ignoring it" might work for John (even if it's breaking the rules, which is also undesirable, since that means my style is not supported and that's a failing of the system), but it doesn't work for me when I take over, since I don't have John's sheet memorized, and will be using the stats off of it.</p><p></p><p>I'd say that this doesn't fit with the "three pillars" thing they keep going on about. Calling for more mechanical support in two of the three pillars seems reasonable. Asking for an optional trade-off is also reasonable when they want to be inclusive of play styles.</p><p></p><p>They've already added mechanics not seen in D&D so far. I'm asking for them to flesh out something that people already use (even if it's optional), and allow me to customize the game to my table (which they've stated they'd like to do). I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. Again, though, I can agree to disagree.</p><p></p><p>This is a play style thing. You'd just be able to go along with the "default" method. My group, however, could tweak our game to make characters who are more interested in one field or another. How is this not win-win? Your way is the baseline assumption, and mine is not baseline. It's purely optional. But, the option lets both of us have our own styles.</p><p></p><p>Set up siloing as default, sure. That's fine. I like that. Just give me the option to opt out of it. My players are okay letting the "face" talk, and only chipping in. It works for them at the table as players (they don't get bored). You don't like that; fine, don't play with the optional rules I'm asking for. Wouldn't that be easy? As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm kind of on board with this, but not completely. If "talents" are just "feats" by another name, though they deal with non-combat, that's fine. Just as long as the same design philosophy that goes into feats is carried over into talents (except the combat part, obviously).</p><p></p><p>Essentially, I want them to have the same impact, within the fiction, that feats do. I want them to be prepackaged, but also able to be taken individually. I want them taken at the same rate over all of your levels. Etc. If that's the case, and you present an optional rule for trading your specialty for a talent package (or a feat for a talent), then you've got me on board. It's basically exactly what I'm asking for.</p><p></p><p>This is, in my mind, essentially not making all feats combat-only. To others, it is. And that's cool; it works for both of us. And that's what I'm asking for. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree. That's why I said the baseline should be balanced (3/3/3 for combat / exploration / interaction).</p><p></p><p>No, it's not. I'll repeat why I think that, too: I'm asking to be better at non-combat roles by losing my combat stuff. Just like, theoretically, somebody could be better at combat by losing their social / exploration stuff. You're saying (as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent you) "you can still do non-combat stuff without feats."</p><p></p><p>That's true. I want a trade-off, though. I want my focused Sage to be better at sagery (that's right, sagery) than your Sage-Knight. Again, it doesn't need to be baseline. And, again, the tradeoff doesn't need to be 1-for-1 (my 3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4). But, I don't want my focused Sage to be just as good as sagery as your Sage-Knight. I want him to be better.</p><p></p><p>As I said, I'm okay with them being <em>called</em> something different. I just want them to essentially be the same resource, or optionally able to be swapped with feats, etc.</p><p></p><p>I'm looking for support, not for house rules. I already have the RPG I made; I don't have any strong desire to "fix" 5e. I'll advocate for the support I want, so that if my brother runs a game with it or something, I'll have that support. But, saying "you can ignore the rules" or "you can house rule" just doesn't appeal to me in 5e. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6022634, member: 6668292"] You said explicitly. Go ahead and show me. Which, in my mind, should be the same as PC rules. There should just be shortcuts for a DM to use to get close approximations on the fly, when he doesn't have much prep time, etc. I base the personality on the way the player has been playing them. I use their mechanical abilities to map to their capabilities within the fiction. That is, if that PC is attacked, I'll use his mechanical defenses. "Ignoring it" might work for John (even if it's breaking the rules, which is also undesirable, since that means my style is not supported and that's a failing of the system), but it doesn't work for me when I take over, since I don't have John's sheet memorized, and will be using the stats off of it. I'd say that this doesn't fit with the "three pillars" thing they keep going on about. Calling for more mechanical support in two of the three pillars seems reasonable. Asking for an optional trade-off is also reasonable when they want to be inclusive of play styles. They've already added mechanics not seen in D&D so far. I'm asking for them to flesh out something that people already use (even if it's optional), and allow me to customize the game to my table (which they've stated they'd like to do). I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. Again, though, I can agree to disagree. This is a play style thing. You'd just be able to go along with the "default" method. My group, however, could tweak our game to make characters who are more interested in one field or another. How is this not win-win? Your way is the baseline assumption, and mine is not baseline. It's purely optional. But, the option lets both of us have our own styles. Set up siloing as default, sure. That's fine. I like that. Just give me the option to opt out of it. My players are okay letting the "face" talk, and only chipping in. It works for them at the table as players (they don't get bored). You don't like that; fine, don't play with the optional rules I'm asking for. Wouldn't that be easy? As always, play what you like :) I'm kind of on board with this, but not completely. If "talents" are just "feats" by another name, though they deal with non-combat, that's fine. Just as long as the same design philosophy that goes into feats is carried over into talents (except the combat part, obviously). Essentially, I want them to have the same impact, within the fiction, that feats do. I want them to be prepackaged, but also able to be taken individually. I want them taken at the same rate over all of your levels. Etc. If that's the case, and you present an optional rule for trading your specialty for a talent package (or a feat for a talent), then you've got me on board. It's basically exactly what I'm asking for. This is, in my mind, essentially not making all feats combat-only. To others, it is. And that's cool; it works for both of us. And that's what I'm asking for. As always, play what you like :) I agree. That's why I said the baseline should be balanced (3/3/3 for combat / exploration / interaction). No, it's not. I'll repeat why I think that, too: I'm asking to be better at non-combat roles by losing my combat stuff. Just like, theoretically, somebody could be better at combat by losing their social / exploration stuff. You're saying (as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent you) "you can still do non-combat stuff without feats." That's true. I want a trade-off, though. I want my focused Sage to be better at sagery (that's right, sagery) than your Sage-Knight. Again, it doesn't need to be baseline. And, again, the tradeoff doesn't need to be 1-for-1 (my 3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4). But, I don't want my focused Sage to be just as good as sagery as your Sage-Knight. I want him to be better. As I said, I'm okay with them being [I]called[/I] something different. I just want them to essentially be the same resource, or optionally able to be swapped with feats, etc. I'm looking for support, not for house rules. I already have the RPG I made; I don't have any strong desire to "fix" 5e. I'll advocate for the support I want, so that if my brother runs a game with it or something, I'll have that support. But, saying "you can ignore the rules" or "you can house rule" just doesn't appeal to me in 5e. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e
Top