Warbringer
Explorer
So I wasn't too far off at (+5) and (+3); I guess non-spellcasters are likely to start with bonus feats through the Apprentice levels at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, while casters only at 3rd. Then the math works.
D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
So I wasn't too far off at (+5) and (+3); I guess non-spellcasters are likely to start with bonus feats through the Apprentice levels at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, while casters only at 3rd. Then the math works.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
Nope, every character will get their first feat at 3rd level...
my guess, feats will be part of the adventuring part of levels 3-15 and in the legacy part there will be some sort of a legacy feat, if you keep feats only at levels 3-15 than some classes will get a feat each level while others might get one every other level.
Warder
I think we're unlikely to see a feat a level. They also said no dead levels.
Although, feats only have to be balanced on half a ability score. Hmm...
Exactly how much is half a modifier (one ability score) worth?
Last edited:
hbarsquared
Quantum Chronomancer
I haven't finished reading the thread, yet, but why not allow the "feat equivalent" be what's already listed in the character advancement table already? +1 to two different ability scores? And design feats according to this level of power?
Maintains bounded accuracy, keep the Score 20 limit. But this way you're more likely to be going from odd-to-even and increasing your modifier for at least once score instead of it being a waste.
Maintaining an odd-score prerequisites for feats would makes sense if they stick with the +1 Ability increases.
I cannot see how allowing different classes with different progressions will work out - access to ability score increases and these uber-feats should be based on character advancement and standardized, in my opinion.
Maintains bounded accuracy, keep the Score 20 limit. But this way you're more likely to be going from odd-to-even and increasing your modifier for at least once score instead of it being a waste.
Maintaining an odd-score prerequisites for feats would makes sense if they stick with the +1 Ability increases.
I cannot see how allowing different classes with different progressions will work out - access to ability score increases and these uber-feats should be based on character advancement and standardized, in my opinion.
Warbringer
Explorer
Makes sense; though the point of Apprentice is to grow into your "starting" features.
Your thinking does leave open that at Epic you get something else more, well EPIC!
------------
"Nope, every character will get their first feat at 3rd level..." You have a source for this? Or is this your line of thought?
Blackwarder
Adventurer
Yup, you can get super feats if what you want is superhero game and just keep doing what you've been doing until now, or Legacy feats that deal more with errr legacy stuff...
BTW, the first feat at 3rd is from a tweet from Mike.
Warder
Warbringer
Explorer
Let's also not forget that if they do indeed add in the "maneuvers" and "tricks" for the Fighter and Rogue that are complementary to the Cleric's and Wizard's "spells"... there's always a good chance that those two mechanics eventually end up taking enough of the load that feats can go back to being an equal number per class. As it stands... it seems like the F&R get extra feats because they are meant to bring those two up into balance with the C&W. But if we can really hammer the maneuvers and tricks to the point where they become on par with spells (both in power and numbers)... uneven feat acquisition will no longer be necessary to make up the difference.
Which would certainly be my preference, all things equal.
Which would certainly be my preference, all things equal.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I'm not a fan of the feat=+1 to a stat tradeoff.
I already think stats are too powerful. Mainly because you get as many bonuses to hit from having 20 levels of fighter as you do from having a 20 Str. And with this change, EVERYONE will have 20 Str. Or a 20 Dex.
I really like the...feel of a stat being between 3(really feeble) to 18(the best a human can be without magic). With characters falling somewhere in that range. I like the idea that a slightly above average strength character can still be a good fighter. As it is now, however, unless you have a 20 Str you might as well not apply. I also don't like the idea that even if you start at a 14 Str, you'll have a 20 by the time you get to max level...along with everyone else who uses melee weapons. Basically everyone will either be Hercules or Spiderman.
I don't have a problem with people either choosing to take a feat or just get generically better at combat to make the choice simple for people who don't want to mess with a large list of feats. Though, each stat is not equal right now. Odd level stats give you nothing. A bonus to your Cha is less valuable than a +1 to Str or Dex. So, what do you balance against? Does a feat roughly equal a bonus to a stat that gives you combat bonus that is currently odd? Or does it give the same as a bonus to Cha when it's even(half of almost nothing).
Say you roll an 18 in your Str and a 16 in Con. You choose a race that gives you +1 to your Str. Your first feat can go into your Str...but after that is it worthwhile to use them on stats after that? Or are we once again creating a disconnect between the haves(people who realize that bonuses to your non-prime stats are next to useless and choose feats instead) and the have-nots(those who find feats too complicated or just prefer to keep things simple and have to use their stats to bonuses to their even Int, Wis, and Cha after they max Str and Con as their Fighter).
I already think stats are too powerful. Mainly because you get as many bonuses to hit from having 20 levels of fighter as you do from having a 20 Str. And with this change, EVERYONE will have 20 Str. Or a 20 Dex.
I really like the...feel of a stat being between 3(really feeble) to 18(the best a human can be without magic). With characters falling somewhere in that range. I like the idea that a slightly above average strength character can still be a good fighter. As it is now, however, unless you have a 20 Str you might as well not apply. I also don't like the idea that even if you start at a 14 Str, you'll have a 20 by the time you get to max level...along with everyone else who uses melee weapons. Basically everyone will either be Hercules or Spiderman.
I don't have a problem with people either choosing to take a feat or just get generically better at combat to make the choice simple for people who don't want to mess with a large list of feats. Though, each stat is not equal right now. Odd level stats give you nothing. A bonus to your Cha is less valuable than a +1 to Str or Dex. So, what do you balance against? Does a feat roughly equal a bonus to a stat that gives you combat bonus that is currently odd? Or does it give the same as a bonus to Cha when it's even(half of almost nothing).
Say you roll an 18 in your Str and a 16 in Con. You choose a race that gives you +1 to your Str. Your first feat can go into your Str...but after that is it worthwhile to use them on stats after that? Or are we once again creating a disconnect between the haves(people who realize that bonuses to your non-prime stats are next to useless and choose feats instead) and the have-nots(those who find feats too complicated or just prefer to keep things simple and have to use their stats to bonuses to their even Int, Wis, and Cha after they max Str and Con as their Fighter).
Similar Threads
