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

[Evenglare]

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.

This is acceptable. Infact this is pretty freaking ingenious.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

But the whole point of the +1 stat is to make feats optional. If you make it a choice between a feat (which includes a +1), and just a +1, that's not really optional.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

If they made the bonuses +1/+1 to two different ability scores with the option of +1 and a feat, I think you solve a lot problems. You still would probably need to find a way to give the Fighter and Rogue more stuff, but they should probably eyeing turning the best feats that best fit the flavor of Fighters and Rogues into class features anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

I see a lot of suggestions here of giving more and more...

I think they don't solve any problem, in fact they create more problems. They make those levels every heavier with benefits, so that dead levels hurts more and then you have to add even more stuff to fill those dead levels at any cost, so in turn you have much more complex characters, many more choices to do when levelling up, bloated character sheets full of stuff you'll never have time to use... Then there are siloing effects, which look like increasing flexibility when in fact they restrict you even more. And as [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] just reminded to all, it even defies the original purpose of making feats optional.

...in a game without skills? I don't have that problem.

I didn't mean that there would be a problem with 2 backgrounds.

I just meant it would be pointless...

Although, maybe there would be some reason, because of the non-weapon proficiencies coming from backgrounds. Without skills, that could be in fact the mechanic that delivers the roguishness of rogues.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Although, maybe there would be some reason, because of the non-weapon proficiencies coming from backgrounds. Without skills, that could be in fact the mechanic that delivers the roguishness of rogues.

What's a roguish proficiency, though? Thieves' tools and...?

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

What's a roguish proficiency, though? Thieves' tools and...?

I have the feeling that "use rope" will rear its head again at some point as "Proficiency: Rope" which is not a bad way to handle it if you can get it both through class (rogue) or background as an additional proficiency along with their other things (Sailor, Mountaineer, etc.)

Proficiency: Magic Device might be an advanced option as well if they don't go the feat route instead.

To answer Li's question, I think rogues will probably get a bonus on perception and anything to do with the "exploration" side of the game as well as individual mechanics for specific non-combat tricks. Or maybe they will go the fight route and just give a whole lot of ability bonuses and let people pick feats; but that does make both of those classes look kind of bland. Since it was mentioned that ability progression would follow sneak attack, I think they have something more planned. If it is just five levels of "Ace In The Hole" I am not sure I am that excited though.

 

[Szatany]

This is acceptable. Infact this is pretty freaking ingenious.

No its not. Who in their right mind would pick a +1 to ability score over a +1 to ability score and an ability?

 

[Evenglare]

No its not. Who in their right mind would pick a +1 to ability score over a +1 to ability score and an ability?

Ah, you are assuming the player is picking, I am assuming the DM - key word- can PICK how they want players to advance. What kind of game does the DM want to run. Sure I agree 100% it would be dumb that a player would pick a +1 over a +1 AND an ability. I thought this was self evident, sorry it wasnt.

 

[Szatany]

Ah, you are assuming the player is picking, I am assuming the DM - key word- can PICK how they want players to advance. What kind of game does the DM want to run. Sure I agree 100% it would be dumb that a player would pick a +1 over a +1 AND an ability. I thought this was self evident, sorry it wasnt.

I understand now. Now I don't like your proposal but for other reason. I like the idea that the choice between abilities and feats can be made on a player to player basis. Each player can choose then how they want to advance their characters, how complex game they want to play. This is brilliant to me.
Yes, dead +1s are rather bad, but even that is just a wrinkle in otherwise beautiful idea.

 

[Evenglare]

I understand now. Now I don't like your proposal but for other reason. I like the idea that the choice between abilities and feats can be made on a player to player basis. Each player can choose then how they want to advance their characters, how complex game they want to play. This is brilliant to me.
Yes, dead +1s are rather bad, but even that is just a wrinkle in otherwise beautiful idea.

Oh I agree with this 100% as well. It is a rather beautiful idea, however upon closer inspection once I actually thought about it, I can not reconcile how this would work, although maybe the brains at wizards have some other avenue that I have not considered. I refuted the idea of balancing a hard mathematical +1 towards a rather subjective selection of feat in a post on a couple pages earlier. But if I can be proven wrong, then GREAT! Bring on the system!