D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[GMforPowergamers]

Because you hear negative stories more than positive ones, because human nature. It's human nature to complain loudly when you don't like something or attack that which you don't like. It's not human nature to tell stories of good things nearly as often. So the much smaller numbers of anti-inclusive people get the lions share of the spotlight. It's like stories of murder in the news vs stories of people saving lives. If the difference in the numbers of each of those stories was truly representative of how life is, it would be foolish to walk out of your door in the morning, and you'd probably still die that day to someone breaking in.

that may be it... maybe I just notice more jerks

 

[Maxperson]

that may be it... maybe I just notice more jerks

Everyone does. Jerks stand out more.

 

[Azzy]

Everyone does. Jerks stand out more.

I think it's been amplified since Covid.

 

[Parmandur]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

 

[Azzy]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

I'm here for it.

 

[cbwjm]

It's a weird juxtaposition to see people complaining about others who say "Try another system" when I have also seen multiple times on these boards people lamenting the fact that people don't want to try other systems. My own thoughts on the matter is basically, if you're in the middle of a DnD game, being told to try another system for something like a heist, isn't useful. But maybe before a campaign begins, suggestions for systems that might work well for heist game you want to run might be useful. Of course, people saying to "Just play another system" without actually providing a system and why it would be a good choice are equally unhelpful.

 

[cbwjm]

You know, rewinding a bit on the original topic...

It strikes me that the Background Feat combined with latter dependent Feats could replace 3E style Multiclassing pretty effectively. Have a Background like "Esotericist" or something that grants the Eldritch Adept Feat from Tasha's, and have that be the "recommended" Background for a Warlock to create an extra Warlock-y Warlock, or let another Class dip into Warlock flavor a bit. Same with giving Fighting Initiate to Soldiers or something, and so on and so forth. Create Level 4 Feats or higher that tie into usual Class Features, and you can have a more 1E or 2E style Multiclass option via these Feats.

I've been thinking that for a while as well, though back when I was considering it, I was only thinking of a single feat. Something like the sorcerer's metamagic feat or the battlemaster's battlemaster feat. Fighting styles are also an excellent feature for a feat and I'd like to see more. These level 1/level 4 feats are hopefully going to be expanded upon because they are great for providing another avenue of character customisation.

 

[Parmandur]

I've been thinking that for a while as well, though back when I was considering it, I was only thinking of a single feat. Something like the sorcerer's metamagic feat or the battlemaster's battlemaster feat. Fighting styles are also an excellent feature for a feat and I'd like to see more. These level 1/level 4 feats are hopefully going to be expanded upon because they are great for providing another avenue of character customisation.

Yeah, it is definitely a power bump, but if it handled systematically, I think it can enhance character representation without creating overwhelming options.

 

[Jaeger]

While I would not want to play in a game without the possibility of death, others do want that and they are still playing D&D. They shouldn't be told that D&D is not for them.

Except that by definition they are not.

It's like playing a game of "chess" where you use the board and pieces but you are outright ignoring any rule you want during play, and still calling it "chess".

You might be using the chess board and pieces, but by any objective measure you were not playing a real game of chess.

They may call what they are doing "playing D&D", and say how much fun it is for them.

I will never tell someone that they are not having fun. They may be having an outright blast. Good for them.

But when you are no longer playing the game as intended; you are literally not playing the same game as people that are.

They may claim that it the same thing, but they are just using its trappings to wrap their new apple in the peel of the orange they started with.

if you're in the middle of a DnD game, being told to try another system for something like a heist, isn't useful. But maybe before a campaign begins, suggestions for systems that might work well for heist game you want to run might be useful. Of course, people saying to "Just play another system" without actually providing a system and why it would be a good choice are equally unhelpful.

This is legit. However...

The problem is that many would rather use the trappings of the #1 rpg and change the paradigm of play by just ignoring rules/ dice results during the game, rather than really outline what type of play experience they are after so useful suggestions can be made of RPG's or storygames to suit.

Poster1: "I don't want PC death due to some random dice roll in combat."

Poster2: " Well Maybe you might be better served by another RPG other than D&D, because it is literally not designed for that paradigm of play; maybe a storygame or other rules lite RPG?"

But instead of: "What would you suggest then?" The immediate and all too predictable reply goes something like:

Poster1: "But we play D&D! Your one true wayism is hating my fun!"

And so one gets the experience of stating a neutral fact, and being responded to as if there is an underlying, unspoken antagonism in one's statement.

No, you seem to be setting up a stance that isn't actually reflected in what other posters have said. Have fun with that.

I quoted posters where they explicitly said that they were/would ignore dice results for purely narrative/story based reasons.

And in other threads where game lethality has come up, similar posts about ignoring mechanical results are posted regularly.

No one was taken out of context.

Now you CAN just switch ideas, but at that point why not just make a new world and start over?

Why should the surviving PC's players have to stop playing their characters?

Why would you make them do that? My players would revolt.

where it is an option why not just stop this game and MAKE a pirate game at that point? even if Pirate was an option 6 months ago, why would all of these characters choose and work together to change so much? Why not just start over (even in the same world if you can't make new ones quick) and just fully do pirates?

Why would I stop the game when there is no justifiable reason to do so?

The game flows from the choices of the players make with their PC's. I'm supposed to say: "Stop dudes, seems you want to be pirates now... so let's start over!"

My players: "Why? What's wrong with you?"

Why would I take away player agency like that? That's just silly.

that premise already sounds more like a pre set story

No it's not. That's not what a story is at all.

No path is planned out. Once the PC's begin interacting with the game world they can do anything they want to.

I don't see how that isn't a story line

again you are describing a story line

you have gone on to describe story lines saying they aren't story lines...

Adventure hooks that they players may or may not react to is a story line?

Describing examples of possible in-game events that might unfold are examples of story lines?

Those are not story lines.

There is no 'story line' because the whole point of such a set up is that I don't know what the PC's will do next, or which direction they will decide to go.

Story line noun
Definition of story line:
- The plot of a story or drama

There is no 'Plot' or 'narrative', because nothing is prewritten. No one knows what will happen until things unfold in the game during play.

You are using the word 'storyline' wrong. It is making your counterargument incomprehensible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Except that by definition they are not.

What definition?

And how do you define this for a game where the first rule is you can change anything about the game?

This is really just the lowest form of gatekeeping right here: not even knowing where the gate is in the first place.

Edit:

Also, improvised and unscripted media have storylines all the time!