D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[Sadrik]

You have class, race, theme and background...and possibly spells, to an extent...if you think feats (and/or some perceived need for MOAR FEATS) are what "customize" your character then......huh. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

I think this is a misnomer. More feats does not solve it. Less static class features and more smaller feats (rather than triple sized ones). It is not customizable, relatively...

At character generation pick:
Class
Subclass
Race
Background
Equipment
Maybe Spells

At level up pick:
Maybe a feat/ability boost
Maybe Spells
Maybe add another class...
(Plus add static numbers and static class features)

No matter which way you slice it, it is not per say a highly customizable game. This was one of their design principles though. They baked it into the goods.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

I think this is a misnomer. More feats does not solve it. Less static class features and more smaller feats (rather than triple sized ones). It is not customizable, relatively...

At character generation pick:
Class
Subclass
Race
Background
Equipment
Maybe Spells

At level up pick:
Maybe a feat/ability boost
Maybe Spells
Maybe add another class...
(Plus add static numbers and static class features)

No matter which way you slice it, it is not per say a highly customizable game. This was one of their design principles though. They baked it into the goods.

I think most will not see you eye-to-eye on this. I for one look at this list and say to myself "Dang, what a ton of customizable options for my characters to take." Given the numbers of classes, subclasses, races and backgrounds, we're talking thousands of different possible combinations before you even get to feats. Frankly the game offers more than enough customization to suit my tastes even if Feats weren't present at all, and the inevitable expansion of all these options in splatbook material means no table will ever have to worry about identical or even mostly-identical characters.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And why aren't they offering a "be an elf" feat? Because Feats are lower in priority than Race is. Thus, the priority list is doing it's job.

If you're serious, I think you're exceptionally wrong. And either way, they're not offering one, so my statement stands.

If Feats were a higher priority, then they could and would design feats that gave the same sorts of power Races do, and they'd treat those Feat choice as more important to character design than the choice of Race. But that's not what they feel is important.

I don't think they would make those feats. They might make a feat that makes you stealthy, and there might be a race that gives a benefit to stealth. What they're saying is that generally the racial ability should be stronger than the feat. I disagree with that design philosophy.

They feel that your Race should mean more to your character than the Feats you choose.

"We've been here before. We're going in circles!" I know. I just disagree.

They wouldn't. All the items (class, race, background, spells and feats) are bundles of abilities but their effect will overlap.

Or, you know, this exactly. Thus why I made the post about them never making a "be an elf" feat.

So if an elf got a stat bonus and skill bonus which helped them do things associated with being an elf (e.g. being perceptive, stealthy or so on) then this gives you a ranking:

A person who is stealthy due to their class (e.g. a rogue) should be more stealthy than...
A person who is stealthy due to a racial bonus (e.g. an elf or halfling?), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who is stealthy due a spell they cast (e.g. Invisibility), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who's is stealthy due to their background (e.g. game keeper???), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who invested a single feat in it (e.g. Skill Focus - Stealth)

This is what it looks like to me with their design, yes. (Although I swapped "spells" and "backgrounds" in your post because they placed spells over background.)

So: a real simple way of implementing this is would be to (for example) say that a rogue rolls Stealth as Dex+6, an elf gets Dex+5, spell would give Dex+4, a background gets you Dex+3 and feat gets Dex+2. This is a really simple example and not meant to be a suggestion of how it will work!

But the race would give you more than just being stealthy, as would the class and so on.

Exactly, and this is my problem. A feat is something you take to define your character, and it only hits one area. Being stealthy, for example. And even though you get this very limited character defining resource that only affects a single area, it's less effective than race (hits a lot of areas), spells (can be swapped out by the majority of classes), and backgrounds (hits a lot of areas). I really dislike that, personally. But that's just me.

 

[dbm]

This is what it looks like to me with their design, yes. (Although I swapped "spells" and "backgrounds" in your post because they placed spells over background.)

Good spot!

Exactly, and this is my problem. A feat is something you take to define your character, and it only hits one area. Being stealthy, for example. And even though you get this very limited character defining resource that only affects a single area, it's less effective than race (hits a lot of areas), spells (can be swapped out by the majority of classes), and backgrounds (hits a lot of areas). I really dislike that, personally. But that's just me.

Feats have only ever really been about tinkering round the edges, though. You could get a Skill Focus feat for +3 to a single skill or there were a set of defined skill bonus pairs (+2 to to related skills); taking both would give you a +5. Compare that to the effect of having a skill as a class skill versus cross-classed. In the longer term, having Stealth as a class skill would result in being much more capable at sneaking. And in most cases a rogue would have a higher Dex than most other characters with a different class, further widening the gap.

I actually think 13th Age has the best interpretation of Feats that I have seen in any D20 game - they function as 'top ups' to other skills or abilities and allow you to say 'my character is especially good at this thing' rather than presenting you with a long shopping list of mostly-dull minor abilities. Well worth looking at if you can.

 

[Libramarian]

On the other hand, something like stealth is less clear-cut. In prior editions, a wizard might use invisibility while a rogue makes a Stealth check to hide. In D&D Next, we decided that stealth and other checks are of utmost importance to the rogue—the elements that help define it as a character class. Thus, a rogue who takes stealth options within the class shouldn’t be overshadowed by the invisibility spell. A class trumps a spell.

You're not even going to mention the fact that the Rogue's stealth check is at-will while spells are a limited resource and the Invisibility spell has an opportunity cost to select? So you're balancing the classes under the assumption that spells are basically at-will abilities and attrition over the adventuring day is insignificant. Which means casters are going to suck hard in games where the DM actually puts pressure on the PCs.

I'm not interested in 5e wizards unless there is some simple yet dramatic houserule to make them more like classic MUs/wizards...like removing both the concentration mechanic and attack cantrips at the same time, or something.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you're serious, I think you're exceptionally wrong. And either way, they're not offering one, so my statement stands.

Well, then if there is no overlap right now between Race and Feats... then it doesn't matter which one is higher on the priority list, is there? If you want to... just say they're tied.

But the point I made is still true-- the reason why they have Feats lower on their list is to make sure they don't ever create one that is better than the package of abilities you get from your Race. So when they create a new feat and look at it... they'll ask themselves (for example) "Is taking this Feat making a PC more Halfling-like than actually taking the Halfling race?" And if they find the answer is 'Yes'... then they'll go back to the drawing board on that Feat. Because they don't want Feats to overshadow Races.

I don't think they would make those feats. They might make a feat that makes you stealthy, and there might be a race that gives a benefit to stealth. What they're saying is that generally the racial ability should be stronger than the feat. I disagree with that design philosophy.

No... they aren't saying anything about individual, minute gains-- they're talking about the overall power of a group in its entirety. And right now... (just like you point out there's no feat that is like a race)... there is no Race that is primarily about stealth. However, there is a Class that is primarily about stealth, and that's the Rogue. And since the Rogue class has higher priority... they're making sure that the Rogue class (on the whole) gives you a stealthier character than another non-Rogue PC that takes a stealth-based Feat package. No one Feat will grant you a more powerful ability to stealth than being a Rogue. Just like no one Spell will make you steathier than a Rogue. Now... if you take a combination of Background, Spell and/or Feat... can together they make you stealthier than a basic, run-of-the-mill Rogue? Perhaps. But as they say... they are okay with those PCs that sink a lot of their design power into accomplishing a specific task. Considering that the Rogue could easily also sink their design power into those things too and thus regain the title of "stealthiest PC" if they so chose.

Basically, all the priority list is giving them is an easy indication to determine whether they're giving out too much stuff for a certain ability. If they create a berzerker Spell at a certain level... they can look and make sure it isn't more powerful than a Barbarian character's Rage at the same level (since Class trumps Spell.) If they create a Background's Trait that is about having a knowledge and working of stone, the can look and make sure it isn't more powerful than the Dwarf's Stonecunning ability (since Race trumps Background.) And if they create a Feat that gives a bunch of skills (like they have), they can look and make sure you don't get more skills than you do through your Background (since Background trumps Feat.)

And so there's no point in wanting Feats higher on the priority list while simultaneously saying Feats wouldn't give out packages like you'd get from a Race or a Background... because the whole point of being higher on the list is that you can and do get more influence and ability from it.

 

[Gadget]

I can see what Mike is saying, and I largely agree with feats being at the bottom. I certainly don't want to go back to the ever broken tide of sludge that 3e feats were in the name of 'customization'. However, I thought feats in 5e were supposed to be 'bigger' than in previous editions; such that they were not fiddly little things to keep track of but gave one a major benefit to justify taking it over an ability score improvement. I'm not sure I like the whole rogue stealth trumps invisibility spell though. Like I said, I see where Mike is coming from, but the spell says 'invisibility' for Pete's sake! I get niche protection, and we all know that the rogue could have his usefulness suborned by a few well placed spells, yet I thought that was what the restrictions on spell casting were for in this edition. With curtailed access to spell slots, the concentration mechanic, and no easy access to consumables like wands, etc. it would seem to make stepping on the Rogues toes a bit more difficult.

 

[Stormonu]

I find it interesting that they break out a spell level, but don't break out a skill level unto itself. Primarily as while some skills may be associated with a particular class, a lot aren't. I mean, if a fighter picks up the stealth skill, should that be more or less powerful than a rogue's ability to use that skill, and how powerful should the skill itself be in relation to a spell or a "stealthy" feat? Clearly, in 3E, skill fell far below the spell tier and could be adjusted by the class (class vs. cross-class).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Feats have only ever really been about tinkering round the edges, though.

Except they've explicitly said they want to make feats more valuable (about triple the worth, maybe?) with 5e.

You could get a Skill Focus feat for +3 to a single skill or there were a set of defined skill bonus pairs (+2 to to related skills); taking both would give you a +5.

Personally, I'm hoping a feat is more than "you get +3 to a skill", and more like "you get +X, and you can do this as well." I think they might stray away from that, though, since they have such a thing for ability checks this edition, which is too bad.

I actually think 13th Age has the best interpretation of Feats that I have seen in any D20 game - they function as 'top ups' to other skills or abilities and allow you to say 'my character is especially good at this thing' rather than presenting you with a long shopping list of mostly-dull minor abilities. Well worth looking at if you can.

Do you have an example you can give, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, though I am curious. Anything stealth-related, for example?

Well, then

Just a heads up, but this will be my last post to you in this thread. This back and forth feels incredibly unproductive (more on that below). So, I'll reply to this, and you can get the last word in, if you want to. You can also continue to reply to my other posts, if you'd like, but I won't be responding.

if there is no overlap right now between Race and Feats...

I never, ever said this. This is part of the unproductive bit I mentioned. I said there won't be a "you're an elf" feat. I then explicitly gave an example of a feat letting you be stealthy being matched up against a race that helps you be stealthy. There is explicit overlap in my example between "Race and Feats".

then it doesn't matter which one is higher on the priority list, is there? If you want to... just say they're tied.

Again, this basic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I'm saying doesn't feel productive.

But the point I made is still true

I disagree, for reasons I've already gone into. I get you disagree with me. That's enough for me in this thread. Hope you gain something insightful from the thread, and that you give others something to think about. Have a good day. Genuinely.

 

[dbm]

Do you have an example you can give, because I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, though I am curious. Anything stealth-related, for example?

Here is a stealth-ish related example. This is a rogue talent - you get to pick 3 from a list of 8 potential options. This one makes you an expert thief:

There are three feat descriptions at the bottom of the section; each is enabled at a different tier (levels 1-5, 6-8 and 9-10). Buying the feats in order expands the benefit the talent gives you.

It works really well in my experience.