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

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION]

Well, quite wonderfully by design, if you don't think its worth sacrificing a +1 stat bump, don't.

Personally, flight is not worth a +1 feat, its too powerful (off the bat, but maybe not at 10th+), and I think your positioning is fair in that the feats have to offer enough, and its been indicated that they will be equivalent to powers or the ability to spellcast.

You do raise an interesting point that why would feats get more powerful if they are equivalent to a +1. I think that part of the math is inherent in the likely effect of a +1 at the time its taken; ie, a +1 taken at levels 10-15 is more likely to be rasing a stat to 20, and there may end up being soemthing funky for a 20 stat. Plus, more explicity, in point buy raising a stat to 18 from 17 costs more than from 14 to 15. Sure they could build the model to reflect that math, but it would require more feats and dead levels, and one dead level between raises is already causing enough debate.

 

[Evenglare]

I agree with the logic of Johnny3D3D. If you are equating feats between +1 and an ability to do something, then on a purely mathematical viewpoint it shouldnt MATTER whether you take the +1 or a Feat that allows you to do something. Of course this is an RPG and pure mathematics doesn't necessarily apply, given that condition there WILL be circumstances that feats will be more or less suited to. So inherently you will either take a feat such as fly(or whatever) that will allow for your character to be MORE or LESS powerful in certain situations than you would be in taking the +1.

The only way to have this balance out is if the feat gives you and advantage 50% of the time and a disadvantage (or not apply) 50% of the time. Of course no style of game is ever the same so it is ludicrous to think that a feat will bring an advantageous effect exactly half the time. Clearly feats can not be balanced in any meaningful way towards a mathematical standpoint of +1. Compounded with the fact that this +1 will lead to dead levels, AND feats are said to get stronger the higher you go makes for a NIGHTMARE of a theoretical equation that may not even be solvable. The only way is to have a swingy game where feats matter or they don't (as in 3.5) which leads to the inevitable fact that some feats will matter more than others leading to a system mastery mentality. OR have a game where you just do the +1 thing , and every one suffers half the time where the +1 will literally do nothing or if you roll characters you could possibly have 6 +1s do nothing, or 6 +1s causing your character to advance in every stat. (I am aware you can simply focus your +1's but that leaves dead levels every other +1)

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I like the idea of +1 vs feats in general and will definitely want to test it out in actual play; but I am wondering if it might not just be better to have a good multiclassing system where if your Wizard wants to be good at a longbow, you could just pick up a level or two of Fighter or Ranger without totally killing your character's overall efficacy. I don't see how a straight port of 3.5 multiclassing rules would allow this; but feats seem pretty antithetical to a lot of the reasons people play class based systems.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Higher levels feats vs lower level feats are balanced in exactly the same way as +1s to your prime stat vs +1s to a tertiary stat... none of them are "exactly" balanced with each other. So trying to figure out some kind of one to one relationship between every feat they make and every way a +1 can be spent is rather futile I think.

 

[thedroid]

Rather than try to make every feat roughly equivalent to a +1, they could use the pluses to abilities up to, say, level 6 or 8, and then replace the pluses with feats at that point. It would give the higher levels a different flavor, and by the time you reach them, you're ready for something a little more complex, with more wow factor.

Of course, they won't do that, because they want modularity, but the goal of modules that can be mixed -- some characters having the pluses and some having the feats -- and keeping some parity between those two paths seems tough to me.

I do like the background rules and would happily use that in place of skills.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Higher levels feats vs lower level feats are balanced in exactly the same way as +1s to your prime stat vs +1s to a tertiary stat... none of them are "exactly" balanced with each other. So trying to figure out some kind of one to one relationship between every feat they make and every way a +1 can be spent is rather futile I think.

I agree to an extent, but that's what strikes me as the most unbalanced part so far.

At low levels, you only qualify for weaker feats (Not As Good), but you can boost your main ability score (Good). At higher levels, you qualify for very strong feats (Good), but can probably only boost your secondary / tertiary ability score (Not As Good). I'd rather see stronger feats at lower levels, and weaker feats at higher level, so that they at least narrow in desirability in the same way (Good at low levels, Not As Good at high levels). But that's just me. As always, play what you like

 

[Warbringer]

I agree to an extent, but that's what strikes me as the most unbalanced part so far.

At low levels, you only qualify for weaker feats (Good), but you can boost your main ability score (Not As Good). At higher levels, you qualify for very strong feats (Good), but can probably only boost your secondary / tertiary ability score (Not As Good). I'd rather see stronger feats at lower levels, and weaker feats at higher level, so that they at least narrow in desirability in the same way (Good at low levels, Not As Good at high levels). But that's just me. As always, play what you like

Then the answer is a complex formula that includes probability of a roll + probability of finding items that add higher bonuses that +1 + probability of when you will take the plus one.

Its a good proxy, and honestly, clever.

 

[Kobold Stew]

welcome to the boards!

Rather than try to make every feat roughly equivalent to a +1, they could use the pluses to abilities up to, say, level 6 or 8, and then replace the pluses with feats at that point. It would give the higher levels a different flavor, and by the time you reach them, you're ready for something a little more complex, with more wow factor.

Of course, they won't do that, because they want modularity, but the goal of modules that can be mixed -- some characters having the pluses and some having the feats -- and keeping some parity between those two paths seems tough to me.

I do like the background rules and would happily use that in place of skills.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Then the answer is a complex formula that includes probability of a roll + probability of finding items that add higher bonuses that +1 + probability of when you will take the plus one.

Its a good proxy, and honestly, clever.

Whoops, I got my first "Good" and "Not as Good" mixed up. As it stands, it looks like this:
Low Levels: Feat or +1? Feat = lower power, or +1 main ability score = higher power.
High Levels: Feat or +1? Feat = higher power, or +1 secondary/tertiary ability score = lower power.

That's the problem. If you wanted them to be equal, you'd want the more powerful feats at lower level. Then it'd look like:
Low Levels: Feat or +1? Feat = higher power, or +1 main ability score = higher power.
High Levels: Feat or +1? Feat = lower power, or +1 secondary/tertiary ability score = lower power.

At least, that's what it looks like to me. As it stands, if you want the most power, you'd go Ability +1 (main ability score) at low levels, then when that's capped, consider some to secondary, but skip to powerful feats at high levels. So, right now, there's a natural progression to go Ability +1, Ability +1, Ability +1, Feat, Feat, Feat. If they want you to debate the two, or make them more equal, they'd want to reverse their "more powerful feats at higher level" stance. Again, this is from where I'm sitting, anyways. As always, play what you like

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Maybe they should combine a feat ability with a stat boost. Just like races and classes come with a +1 stat bonus, make each feat come with a appropriate +1 to a stat. Picking up arcane spells with a feat? +1 Int. Picking up a fighting style? +1 Str. And if you don't want the complexity of feats, just allow a +1 to a stat of the player's choice.