D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
That will tend to mitigate the possibility of ability score increases that don't do anything, but doesn't help us resolve higher level ability bumps being relatively less useful to the character (assuming they've been bumping their primary 1-3 scores) while feats presumably get more powerful.
What if we had 3 tiers of feats and ability bumps, a bit like heroic/paragon/epic? Perhaps a tier 1 ability bump grants +1 to a single score, tier 2 grants +1 to two different scores, and tier 3 grants +1 to three different scores. Similarly, a tier 1 feat replaces a +1 the character would otherwise receive, a tier 2 feat replaces +1 to two scores, and a tier 3 feat replaces +1 to three scores. The default is to get ability scores, but as its tier increases so does the tier of available feats. Furthermore, one can always choose to get a lower tier feat and receive a partial ability score bump. For the sake of argument suppose a character gets 8 ability score/feat slots as follows:
3. Tier 1
5. Tier 1
8. Tier 2
10. Tier 2
13. Tier 2
15. Tier 2
18. Tier 3
20. Tier 3
This would grant up to 16 ability scores increases (same as +1/+1 8 times) but we can still make the absolute power of feats scale with tier (good) while the additional ability score increase at high levels probably overcomes the diminishing returns to most characters from an individual +1 to non-primary scores (also good). A tier 3 feat shouldn't be three times as good as a tier 1 feat, but perhaps twice as good is OK. A character that takes 8 tier 1 feats would still have 8 increases to ability scores, but not the best feats in the game, and the "race to the cap" would likely be a lot slower. Another character might bump their prime score or two early (say the first 4 chances) and then concentrate on the best feats, but missing out on 10 ability score increases from levels 13-20 isn't necessarily an easy choice. Or a character could always take the best feats possible and never raise a score. I like that it doesn't really matter when you take a particular feat because opportunity cost is tied to ability bumps lost, and so you can't "waste" a low-level feat in a high-level slot. For example, suppose two characters make identical build choices except at level 3 and 20, where the first character bumped first then took a tier 1 feat (and thus +1 to two different scores), and the second character chose a tier 1 feat and then bumped three different scores. At level 20 both characters can have the same feats and same ability scores. Similarly, a character taking a tier 1 feat in a tier 3 slot doesn't automatically have a weaker result because the tier 3 feat costs more.
At levels 3 and 5 there is a sizable risk that no single ability bump does anything, but it's at just those 2 levels and hopefully there's a decent chance an odd score or two is around. Plus, for games starting at level 3 one of those can be taken into account at character creation, so waiting isn't strictly necessary. At higher levels one has a lot more freedom to plan future bumps while getting something immediately.
Last edited:
Actually, there is an easy-but-not-simple cop out the dilemma of balancing stat increases vs feats : monetary fungibility, aka point buy : you just assign a buying power to each and every slot, and a price to every boon. We already know the price for stats via point-based chargen, we "just" have to assign a proper budget to each level-based increase, and design/price the feats correctly.
Pros : easy to balance/design (even if we never see such a system, I guess the designers will use such a system as a guideline)/splat/adjust via errata
Cons : Fiddly / are we playing GURPS or D&D ?
Pros : easy to balance/design (even if we never see such a system, I guess the designers will use such a system as a guideline)/splat/adjust via errata
Cons : Fiddly / are we playing GURPS or D&D ?
Straight point buy will never fly, in my opinion, for better or worse. First, there is existing vitriol about rolling vs. point buy in character creation, so baking it so transparently into advancement would likely be a major turn off to a fair number of players. Second, the fiddliness (as you note). Third, if points do not carry over from level to level (both to reduce fiddliness and encourage players to spread the points out) there will be times when points are wasted, or must be spent on a score/feat the player really has no interest in. Leaving points on the table, or being forced to spend them on something you don't really want, can be deeply unsatisfying even if the result is mechanically sound. Fourth, once there are sufficient points to raise the primary stat the player has little reason to do anything else until hitting the cap, which is pretty much the system we might have anyway.
Szatany
First Post
I like it. In fact I like it so much that from now on my hopes are this will be implemented. One exception though - maybe simpler variant with only two levels of feats would suffice. For levels 1-11 a feat or +1 to ability. For levels 12-20 a greater feat or +1 to two abilities.
Other than that, lovely idea.
Warbringer
Explorer
Non-Casters are going to get 12 feats and casters 6, most likely between 3-15 levels.
Regarding the feat getting progressively less powerful, the simple exit to maintaining this is making the class concept (class+background) dependent on two primary stats (ala 4e); one from class and one from concept. As the main issue here is likely to be with non-casters, its far more likely these character concepts will be (should be) dependent on two stats anyway (basic fighter Str/Con; basic Rogue Dex/Cha).
It is worth also considering that is primarily a mechanism for balancing Basic and Standard/Advanced play, though the point is taken that a) different styles can be seen at the same table and b) a default progression will likely evole as being opitmal for when ability scores are taken (as shown above). Some of the great ideas here fail that test by making the feat inherently stronger between the play levels (ie feat vs something + feat), but the issue of dead level will be an issue for some.
I'd also like to see a built in feat like benefit for reaching 20 in a stat;
Str: Samson's Might (Double damage vs Inanimate Objects, Advantage on Athletics Checks)
Con: Perfect Health (Healing rate 1 step higher than campaign base, Advantage on Endurance Checks)
Dex: Cat's Grace (+2 Move, Advantage on Acrobatics Checks)
Int: Perfect Memory (Advanatge on Knowldege Checks)
Wis: Indomiable Will (Resistant to Charm), Clear Insight (Advantage on Insight checks)
Cha: Fascinate (like spell)
Finally, I'm also on board with base stats in gneral being lower. Currently, its easy to see starting characters at 18 or 19 in their primary stat, reaching 20 at 1st level with first selection at 3rd (the assumed non-basic starting level). I think this needs to be revised to 16/17 the starting max.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Neither is their current proposal. I wasn't addressing that.
First, those who don't want to play with feats at all would use the +1 to ability score universally. Second, that would be +1 to an ability score of your choice vs. an ability and a hardcoded +1 to an ability score. They could also tone down the power level of the feats from what they propose. I'm concerned that Mike says feats will be "WOW!" once they implement this, but most players will be "meh" and take the +1 to ability score because it is a proven quantity. You know, those same players that take the "boring +1 feats" now.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
For example:
Your Fighter has the following stats: STR 15, CON 15, DEX 14, INT 8, WIS 12, CHA 10
As a player, you're sick of stealthy monsters getting the jump on you and you spy this feat:
Alertness
Benefit: You gain +1 to Wisdom and cannot be surprised.
Which would you take?
Feats can remain situational (which puts them in the "meh" category for many players) and still grant +1 to a stat more relevant to the example Fighter. And those who don't want to bother with situational abilities can just choose where their stat increase goes instead of fiddling with 6 to 12 of those situational abilities to keep track of.
If they can find ways to create universally useful feat choices that aren't "+1 to X" I will be pleasantly surprised.
Your Fighter has the following stats: STR 15, CON 15, DEX 14, INT 8, WIS 12, CHA 10
As a player, you're sick of stealthy monsters getting the jump on you and you spy this feat:
Alertness
Benefit: You gain +1 to Wisdom and cannot be surprised.
Which would you take?
Feats can remain situational (which puts them in the "meh" category for many players) and still grant +1 to a stat more relevant to the example Fighter. And those who don't want to bother with situational abilities can just choose where their stat increase goes instead of fiddling with 6 to 12 of those situational abilities to keep track of.
If they can find ways to create universally useful feat choices that aren't "+1 to X" I will be pleasantly surprised.
Szatany
First Post
Naaa, they would take feats that grant increases to abilities they want. Then they would complain they had to take feats just to be effective characters
What cleric wouldn't ever take this?
I don't think trying to make each feat universally useful is the right way. It's okay to have some choices useless to you. As long as you have sizeable amount of options, and as long as each option is useful to some characters (more than one class or race, for example).
Last edited:
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
I'm not saying a Cleric wouldn't take that feat. I'm saying that Alertness, as presented above, is situational and does not make me say "WOW!" when looking at it. It is moderately powered, IMO. Mearls seems to be shooting for bigger than this, and I hope his team can surprise me.
Similar Threads
