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: 6023897" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>This reasoning doesn't satisfy me one bit. You begin to touch on why immediately, though:</p><p></p><p>And this is exactly why. D&D 5e wants allow or support multiple play styles. That's good, in my mind. While the majority certainly doesn't need completely combat inept characters, I think that the majority would enjoy shifting the 3/3/3 balance around from time to time. Even if one person from every group does it at some point, that means that every group would be affected by that optional rule.</p><p></p><p>That's not insignificant. For groups like mine, it's a requirement. But, hey, I'm not going to switch over to it as my main game, anyways. However, I might play in it when my brother decides to run a game, or occasionally run it myself as a one-shot. To that end, having a character that isn't forced to silo his abilities is very important. And, again, it's not just important to me. If one person from every group shifts that 3/3/3 balance just once (with permission from the DM and possibly other players), it would have an effect on every group. I imagine this would be true for at least 50% of groups at some point.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>People play the game in different ways. I'm not asking to change the default assumption. And asking for support for people who want to change the default assumption. And I think that's reasonable, when it could be as easy as "since Feats [combat] and Talents [non-combat] run on similar tracks, just swap your Feats for Talents." That's easy, simple, and intuitive, and it's optional. The baseline is still 3/3/3.</p><p></p><p>Like I said, I almost assuredly won't be switching to it, regardless. I still have a vested interest for when I play in it, and also for the direction that the game is taking. If they do the same thing with multiclassing that I think they should, then I might look into it.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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? I said, rather explicitly, that I'm okay with them (combat abilities and non-combat abilities) being called different things, as long as they're on the same schedule.</p><p></p><p>Which is why I'm in active support of 3/3/3 being the baseline.</p><p></p><p>This is why I'm in active dissent as 3/3/3 being mandatory. In my group, the combat stuff isn't always survivable. And, yes, I know you said "to a large portion of the audience." 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 <em>complained</em> when getting automatic hit points at every level in 3.5. It didn't fit what they wanted from the game.</p><p></p><p>I think giving the kind of support I'm asking for should be easy enough. I really do. And it doesn't change that baseline assumption at all.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I also might disagree with your use of "viable", since I'm guessing that heavily depends on the type of campaign you run.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>Able to punch more/harder? No? Must be just me... 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: 6023897, member: 6668292"] This reasoning doesn't satisfy me one bit. You begin to touch on why immediately, though: And this is exactly why. D&D 5e wants allow or support multiple play styles. That's good, in my mind. While the majority certainly doesn't need completely combat inept characters, I think that the majority would enjoy shifting the 3/3/3 balance around from time to time. Even if one person from every group does it at some point, that means that every group would be affected by that optional rule. That's not insignificant. For groups like mine, it's a requirement. But, hey, I'm not going to switch over to it as my main game, anyways. However, I might play in it when my brother decides to run a game, or occasionally run it myself as a one-shot. To that end, having a character that isn't forced to silo his abilities is very important. And, again, it's not just important to me. If one person from every group shifts that 3/3/3 balance just once (with permission from the DM and possibly other players), it would have an effect on every group. I imagine this would be true for at least 50% of groups at some point. 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). People play the game in different ways. I'm not asking to change the default assumption. And asking for support for people who want to change the default assumption. And I think that's reasonable, when it could be as easy as "since Feats [combat] and Talents [non-combat] run on similar tracks, just swap your Feats for Talents." That's easy, simple, and intuitive, and it's optional. The baseline is still 3/3/3. Like I said, I almost assuredly won't be switching to it, regardless. I still have a vested interest for when I play in it, and also for the direction that the game is taking. If they do the same thing with multiclassing that I think they should, then I might look into it. 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. 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? I said, rather explicitly, that I'm okay with them (combat abilities and non-combat abilities) being called different things, as long as they're on the same schedule. Which is why I'm in active support of 3/3/3 being the baseline. This is why I'm in active dissent as 3/3/3 being mandatory. In my group, the combat stuff isn't always survivable. And, yes, I know you said "to a large portion of the audience." 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 [I]complained[/I] when getting automatic hit points at every level in 3.5. It didn't fit what they wanted from the game. I think giving the kind of support I'm asking for should be easy enough. I really do. And it doesn't change that baseline assumption at all. 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. 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? Able to punch more/harder? No? Must be just me... 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