Level Up (A5E) Feats, Feats, & More Feats!

[Sansang]

Yeah, probably I don't love the idea of building blocks, but they are not bad per se, the problem is when you aim at something and you are forced to take something you don't like, or you are not interested in, to get it.

I love how they changed the Monk by the way and when I talked to my friends about this project I stressed exactly this. Making the "Monk" a generic unarmed fighter is just perfect to me.

About the basic maneuvers, I feel I could do a lot things out of attacking in 5e. The rulebook is pretty clear about this to me, it gives you two examples, manouvers are handled by Athletics vs Athletics or Actobatics, and for the rest do as you please. Many hates gm fiat, but to me it's amazing. "I want to do this, doing that, while being like this" and I know it always end up with me telling my players "Roll this, I will roll that, if you win you get a prize". There is not a list of things you can do, just those two examples to make you understand how to handle it, and after that I never had the need to open the book again. The absence of (some) rules actually improves the game for me. With this, I know for sure that I will have to look it up every single time someone will tell me "I disarm dude", and if someone wants to improvise something... I don't know, probably I will make it up like I did in 5e (great) or will have to tell him "No, to do that you need to have this manouver of this combat tradition" (Actually manouvers from combat traditions looks pretty strong and I don't think this will happen often).

 

[Morrus]

For example, one of mine is the basic manuevers. I really think 5e nailed the opposed athletic rolls and the like, I think the basic maneuvers are a step backwards.

Remember all those massive surveys we did with thousands of participants? I’m afraid that you are in a vanishingly small minority. People loved what we did with basic maneuvers.

One thing we’re strict about is listening to the data. We’d be fools to ignore thousands of people.

(As a side note, in all my years playing D&D, this is also the first time I’ve ever seen basic menuvers get much actually use at the game table, too. I feel like the designers nailed that one.)

 

[Sansang]

I’m afraid that you are in a vanishingly small minority.

I know you wasn't referring to me, but I know to be in that same small minority.

I mean, I'm someone who don't like having priced magic items for example, and I know that this is an extremely, completely and totally unpopular opinion of mine. Happens, but discussing is fun for discussion's sake.

 

[Morrus]

I know you wasn't referring to me, but I know to be in that same small minority.

You’ve made that clear.

 

[Horwath]

Boy is this a hot topic! Just remember you don't have to use these at all. As I am sure it says somewhere in this game, make this game your own. Use the rules you want and change the ones you don't like and above all else HAVE FUN!

have to agree with @Stalker0 here, it's a product that we pay for. It's like buying an excellent car but with A/C that sucks, and they just tell you; you don't need to use A/C. if you don't like it. Well, I payed for A/C together with the car, and I want it to work good like the rest of the car.

That is why I'm sad that we didn't have FEAT playtest document. Or did I missed it??

 

[VanguardHero]

Ad-hocing stuff is fine, though at a certain point of relying on it I have to ask why a person isn't playing a different more rules lite narrative based system, but at the end of the day you can't please everyone and the two options come down to "Include stuff and people who don't want it can ignore it" like I find resting only giving back half Hit Dice super dumb and will just make it a full replenish, or "Don't include stuff and then people who do want it can homebrew it themselves or sift through tons of non-quality controlled 3rd party content" like...the vast swathes of 5e that just didn't exist, like economy, exploration, and crafting.

 

[Gandalf970]

I love this game and cannot wait to play it. I appreciate the thoroughness in which the designers put into this product. Thanks EnWorld!

 

[Steampunkette]

Honestly... as much as I love the way the Synergy Feats are designed... I'm probably going to rip out most of the requirements at my table.

Eldritch Knight Bladechanters with 0 levels of Wizard feels like they could be a thing. Same thing with Arcane Trickster Bladechanters or Eldritch Archers. How about a Bladechanter Warlock but instead of discarding 2 Exertion you expend 1 spell point per level of the concentration effect?

I'll have to see the whole list of Synergy feats, but I think I might go through the whole list and do stuff like that because while I think it's kind of awesome to expand concepts like that into feats, where you're trading the ASI you could be having for specific and thematic traits and new ways to expend resources, I feel like making it multiclass-specific is a touch on the limiting side.

 

[Timespike]

Honestly... as much as I love the way the Synergy Feats are designed... I'm probably going to rip out most of the requirements at my table.

Eldritch Knight Bladechanters with 0 levels of Wizard feels like they could be a thing. Same thing with Arcane Trickster Bladechanters or Eldritch Archers. How about a Bladechanter Warlock but instead of discarding 2 Exertion you expend 1 spell point per level of the concentration effect?

I'll have to see the whole list of Synergy feats, but I think I might go through the whole list and do stuff like that because while I think it's kind of awesome to expand concepts like that into feats, where you're trading the ASI you could be having for specific and thematic traits and new ways to expend resources, I feel like making it multiclass-specific is a touch on the limiting side.

While you are certainly welcome to do that, the experience of working on my Multiclass Feats supplement very much left me with the belief that where multiclass-enabling feats are concerned, specific is better than general. The more you can hook the abilities of one class into another, and the more the whole feels greater than the sum of its parts, the better the overall experience will be (again, my opinion, your mileage may vary).

All of this to say that rather than shaving off the requirements for what exists already, I'd encourage you to design specific synergy feat trees that do what you want them to. It's a rewarding experience and a good creative exercise. (You might even wind up with something worth self-publishing, and Morrus is eager to have 3PP support for Level Up!)

 

[Steampunkette]

While you are certainly welcome to do that, the experience of working on my Multiclass Feats supplement very much left me with the belief that where multiclass-enabling feats are concerned, specific is better than general. The more you can hook the abilities of one class into another, and the more the whole feels greater than the sum of its parts, the better the overall experience will be (again, my opinion, your mileage may vary).

All of this to say that rather than shaving off the requirements for what exists already, I'd encourage you to design specific synergy feat trees that do what you want them to. It's a rewarding experience and a good creative exercise.

Oh, have no fear... I -VASTLY- prefer these Synergy Feats to trying to apply Prestige Classes to 5e or A5e for the one -marvelous purpose that Prestige classes actually made interesting in previous D&D Editions.

So I will be using them, designing them, to fulfill setting-specific concepts.

Like you might roll up a Cleric of the Flower in the Chronicles setting, but there might be two separate Synergy Feat lines which denote a specific denomination. Whether you're a member of the more aggressive and greedy Blood of Nefia or the more egalitarian Nefia Among the People.

I plan to create some crazy stuff once I get these books in my hot little hands... Just a matter of -time-.