D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[darjr]

I really love this article. I think I'll not use the skills subsystem and use the backgrounds one. With one change. For those who want to try a thing that needs training I'll let them try with either a large - or with disadvantage.

I love the open endednes of backgrounds. If there is some unique kind of specialty in my campaign I don't have to figure out how to fit it to a predefined set of skills or balance it with other well defined skills.

 

[Warbringer]

More and more I'm thinking the feat should actually give +2 to a stat instead.

I'm thinking it should be two +1 boni, where the second +1 must be applied to an even ability . That way, you build for the next bonus and avoid dead levels, while avoiding primary at explosion.

 

[delericho]

I think (though might be completely wrong), one of the older editions granted a character with 19 con the ability to regenerate. That's freaking cool.

2nd Edition, and it was 20 Con. (Bear in mind that Dwarves only got +1, and stat boosts were considerably more rare.)

Re: the article - I liked it. Last week's effort almost had be tuning out of 5e talk entirely, but this one seemed really quite nice. I'm still in the "probably not switching" camp though.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

2nd Edition, and it was 20 Con. (Bear in mind that Dwarves only got +1, and stat boosts were considerably more rare.)

That's such an awesome idea I wish they'd do that again. No matter how healthy I get, I doubt i'll ever regenerate. But I can imagine what it means to have an extraordinarily robust metabolism that can do this.

 

[1of3]

I agree that i would solve, or at least soften the issue. But what would you assign?
One way would be to free checks from modifieres and use straight ability score, but that will never happen.

Strength has carrying capacity that's based on its score, so you get something for increasing your STR. Other than that, there is nothing else IIRC.

What if each ability score had a minor benefit for each odd value above certain number? Like in 2nd edition you gained resistances to illusion or something (can't remember) if your INT was 17 or higher. I always liked those.

They could certainly rearrange some of the "other" benefits to the odd values: Extra languages, extra HP, carrying capacity, bonus AC, attunement slots and something for Wisdom.

 

[Dausuul]

Reserving judgement until the next playtest packet. I remain deeply skeptical of feats, but Mearls has given me some hope that they might finally become worth bothering with, and I'm very glad to hear they will be optional. The "odd-numbered ability score problem" is, well, a problem, but I can think of ways around it. Curious to see what the new skill module looks like, and the background system sounds very promising--like secondary skills in 2E.

A lot of promising possibilities here, but it's a question of what happens when the rubber meets the road. I'm hoping the next packet will give us some sense of that.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm curious to see how these feats replace prestige classes. Like what would having an Arcane Archer feat do?

Something like your arrows can inflict fire, cold, lightning, thunder or acid damage. And some limited number of times, determined by something you could can have your arrows inflict damage over a 10' radius cloud.

I think the 3.0 Arcane Archer would have been a perfect class to disassemble into feats.

Each of that AA special abilities (except Enchant Arrow because it would break bounded accuracy, at least if it remained at-will) could be turned into a feat, although feats now are going to be bigger so these would need an update, perhaps more uses per day, or even at-will?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think (though might be completely wrong), one of the older editions granted a character with 19 con the ability to regenerate. That's freaking cool.

I'm not sure about that... sure the first time one of your players gets it, it will be cool. The second character will be "yeah, I made it too". But 5e is not 2e, getting a 20 is not that hard, and soon having that regenerate will be normal for 20% of the PCs. Not so cool anymore...

The problem is not the regenerate ability itself. It's that it would a standard. At least if there were 10-12 special abilities to choose from (including regenerate) when you hit Con 20, that would be much better...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The odd number ability score problem isn't really that big an issue. What it really does is encourage a player to grab the easy wins, then opt for feats for the rest, which both keeps the numbers down and creates broad characters. At the same time, it leaves open the option for maxing out an attribute, but you have to pay for it. Ultimately, that leads to a more balanced game.

Next step, make 3d6 the baseline for starting attributes.

 

[Warbringer]

It also depends how often the class gets a feat. I'm thinking that spell casting classes will be every 3 levels and non-spell casting 2 levels. If so, feats need to be big, and from mearls:

"Powers, special attacks, minor spellcasting, expertise at sneaking or interaction, and so forth can live inside of feats"

This definitely has the feel feats are going to be much more on the power of class features and 4e powers than 3e feats... Indeed, feats look like the mechanism for 4e level capabilities.

That gives +5 modifier increase for non-spell casters, enough to get to 20 on primary and secondary and +3 fo spell casters, so just primary. Feels right.