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

[1of3]

I think we all just need to get over the "this +1 doesn't do anything!"

If that was so, why the hassle about Dead Levels? Doesn't a Dead Level get you half way to your next class feature?

Strangely, mearls explained that +1s/feats were used as another way to avoid Dead Levels.

 

[keterys]

My problem is that +1 to an off-stat is such absurdly low value that a feat is already worth more than it. So, if the idea is they're going to make feats way cooler because now they're worth the same as +1 to a stat, I'm lost.

Example
+1 Charisma

1/2 the time gives you +1 to Charisma-based checks.
1/2 the time gives you +1 to Charisma-based saves.

A feat that gave either of those benefits would be a weak feat. One that gave both would be an okay feat. And that's now. It's also pretty boring, mind you.

More likely, to convince people to take it if feats are going to be "tremendous", you'd need something like
Force of Personality: You gain advantage on Charisma-based checks and saves.
(Compare to Trap Sense and Defensive Ward)

And that's more like the value of 6 or so points of Charisma - 8 or 10, depending on the math situation you're trying to solve.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

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.

How about doing the opposite?

Altertness
Cost: -1 Wisdom
Benefit: You cannot be surprised.

You then give each class a certain number ability "bumps". You can never have more feats than you have bumps.

But a Str 19 fighter would be able to bump up his Strength to 20 and gain this feat in the same level up. Once he gets to 20 Strength he would have to keep applying his bonuses to strength to maintain his +5 bonus if he wished to take Strength based feats. Or he could add to another ability and take a non-strength based feat.

You could simply have a rule that no one can take a feat to drop an ability below 10 if that becomes an issue.

Off the top of my head this seems to fix most of the objections I have seen raised about feats. You would only have dead bonus levels in the Basic game. But in core, every level would give you either a feat, a +1 to ability or both. It also feels more "modular" to me, even though it essentially does the same thing.

*Feel free to tear this apart. I am sure there is something I have overlooked*

 

[Evenglare]

I think we all just need to get over the "this +1 doesn't do anything!" mentality.

Taking a +1 when you have an even stat isn't "getting nothing"... it's getting you halfway to a bump in your modifier. The point here is we need to look at the totality of a character's advancement... and not just one specific level.

So the idea is that at the end of the day... do the total number of ability modifier bonuses you potentially gain over your 10 levels or 20 levels remain relatively on par (and note, I say 'on par' and not 'exactly equal') with the half-dozen plus special abilities you get from feats over that same amount of time?

I don't see any need in finding a way to "fix" the ability score bonus when you're using it on an even numbered score, because it doesn't "equal" the power of a feat. Look at everything you get over the life of your character and see if mod bonuses and feats (mixed and matched to your hearts content) keep all the characters relatively in check with one another. That's the balance we need to make sure to see.

That's a really awful way of saying "I DONT LIKE HEARING YOUR CRITIQUES SO GET OVER IT". Please never design a game. Obviously balancing a feat towards a hard mechanical bonus of +1 is almost impossible to do , and this is a pretty awful design as myself and others have pointed out if you use logic and think about for a bit. I can imagine in play, it sure will be fun to see another character get something cool from a feat while I take my +1 and get nothing that level. What happens if the campaign ends at this level? That would really suck. You are assuming campaigns will go from 1-20, and let's be perfectly honest.... how often does that really happen? Almost never. Several pages ago I demonstrated that this will never work, as have other people multiple times.

 

[GX.Sigma]

*Feel free to tear this apart. I am sure there is something I have overlooked*

It's harder to balance. If it's a bonus, players will always try to make it as effective as possible (I'll put that +1 into Strength because I want a lot of Strength!). If it's a penalty, players will always try to make it as ineffective as possible (I'll put that -1 into Charisma because I don't care about Charisma anyway!). It just encourages min-maxing.

Also it's feels weird that it actually decreases your ability score. Nobody wants to give themselves a minus just so they can have a situational bonus. For both mechanical and "feel" concerns, I think it works better if it's a choice between a good thing and a good thing, rather than between a good-bad thing and nothing.

 

[Ainamacar]

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.

Yeah, the number of tiers and where they begin/end is pretty malleable, albeit somewhat less so if some classes get more feats than others. In a gonzo game the DM could simply say that every feat or bump is equivalent to what I called tier 3. In a grittier setting perhaps they are all tier 1, which is equivalent to the current WotC proposal except that feats do not scale in power. If the game defines feats up to tier n pretty much any consistent method of handing out feats/bumps up to that tier is possible without greatly disrupting intra-party balance.

Non-Casters are going to get 12 feats and casters 6, most likely between 3-15 levels.

Well, the 8 feats was just an example progression. Insofar as a class' overall power is the sum of its class features and its feats/bumps, in principle they can find a balance such that what a class gains in feats it loses in class features. As I mentioned above, of course, if different classes have different feat progressions it is tougher to change (or eliminate) the progression without changing intra-party balance. I think being able to turn off both feats and ability score bumps entirely is an option worth preserving, so I would favor a universal feat progression. A fixed feat progression with some classes explicitly granting bonus feats (basically 3e-style) would also work if games that turn feats/bumps off make an exception for those few bonus feats and stick to whatever default tier the game assumed in balancing those classes in the first place. That's 3e-style progression is definitely a compromise, though, and I know a lot of people dislike it.

In any case, different feat progressions for each class is just as much subject to change as the feats themselves.

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).

I don't understand how codifying two primary stats helps, rather than exacerbates, that issue. Can you explain further, I have this feeling I'm misunderstanding you. From my perspective the only straightforward fix is if every ability score were very (if not equally) valuable to every character, so that the notion of a "primary" ability score were a fairly weak one. That kind of universal MAD is not likely to happen, of course, which is why the discussion exists in the first place.

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)

I don't care for that because 20 is merely the cap for humanoids (or PC appropriate creatures anyway). If 20 were the cap for all creatures I could go for it, but then there is the issue of PCs as strong as Titans, which should be rare at best. Since 30 is, I think, the current limit for any creature one could put stuff there, but at that point it really isn't really attainable to the PCs in the first place, and those few monsters that hit the cap may as well get a tailored special ability, if anything. I'd rather these sorts of things were just appropriate feats with a prerequisite of 20 in the stat.

 

[Siberys]

Personally... I find the idea of changing up the d20 system just for ability checks rankles my sensibilities. A change-up of the base mechanic of the game just to try and create some sort of false equivalence between any single feat and its doppleganger replacement.

Unnecessary overkill for very little gain.

Uh, what? I'm not suggesting a change to the d20+mod vs. DC mechanic (What I can only assume you mean by 'base mechanic'), nor am I suggesting feats be
'doppelgangers' of each other. What I'm saying is options need to be close enough in value that they're actually options. Relevantly to this discussion, I don't think balancing against a +1 to an ability score will be easy because of its natural variance
in value; I think it'd be better to balance against a +2 and (maybe) cut down on the number feats. Or, better yet, find something other than ability score bonuses to use for the 'featless' model, and balance against /that/.

 

[Warbringer]

I don't understand how codifying two primary stats helps, rather than exacerbates, that issue. Can you explain further, I have this feeling I'm misunderstanding you. From my perspective the only straightforward fix is if every ability score were very (if not equally) valuable to every character. That kind of universal MAD is not likely to happen, of course, which is why the discussion exists in the first place.....

Well I agree MAD is unlikely to happen, but designing classes with two equally important ability scores isn't. I suggested this because of the level of complaining that +s would be a waste at higher levels because the player would have maxed his primary and would be spending feats in sub-optimal ability scores; solution, two equally important primaries

I don't care for that because 20 is merely the cap for humanoids (or PC appropriate creatures anyway). If 20 were the cap for all creatures I could go for it, but then there is the issue of PCs as strong as Titans....

Well personally, I have no problem with character rules being different from monster rules, ergo, monsters would not get these benefits.

Re feat pre-requisities, I hopes these are a thing of the past

 

[DEFCON 1]

Uh, what? I'm not suggesting a change to the d20+mod vs. DC mechanic (What I can only assume you mean by 'base mechanic')

My apologies... I was actually trying to reference back to the original idea given upthread of making ability check modifiers equal to Stat - 10, rather than Stat -10 divided by 2 (which is how they are currently determined.)

So my point was that trying to have one set of modifiers for attack and damage bonuses, and another set of modifiers for ability checks was an unnecessary change to the base mechanic of the d20 system for little gain.

 

[Ainamacar]

That's a really awful way of saying "I DONT LIKE HEARING YOUR CRITIQUES SO GET OVER IT". Please never design a game. Obviously balancing a feat towards a hard mechanical bonus of +1 is almost impossible to do , and this is a pretty awful design as myself and others have pointed out if you use logic and think about for a bit. I can imagine in play, it sure will be fun to see another character get something cool from a feat while I take my +1 and get nothing that level. What happens if the campaign ends at this level? That would really suck. You are assuming campaigns will go from 1-20, and let's be perfectly honest.... how often does that really happen? Almost never. Several pages ago I demonstrated that this will never work, as have other people multiple times.

Let's not put words in his mouth, or this will go to the bad place.

Here is how I think of the delayed gratification issue. If we balance feats against +1 ability score (such that they are worth +1/2 modifier) the assumption is that we can do it enough that the "graininess" of the progression averages out. There are three main considerations:
1) Do we in fact do it often enough so the graininess averages out? The answer to that is definitely maybe. Games end unexpectedly, they end when expected (but only last a few levels), or any number of other things.
2) How frequently do we sample, and thus how long does it take to trend toward the average? In the proposed system we sample the +1 every few to several levels. In most games that will be weeks of real time before any given choice averages with the next one. The time to generate a reasonably large sample (so that the balance assumption is a very good one) might be the entire campaign.
3) Should resources present real (as opposed to potential) benefits when taken. I think the answer essentially depends on the answer to #1 and #2. For D&D we might not actually take that many samples and there is a fairly long wait between samples. That means the assumptions that support balancing vs. a +1 ability score do not necessarily hold, and even if they do hold it might take a long time to achieve. If I'm spending a rare resource I shouldn't have to wait. That is why I don't think this is particularly good design for D&D. In a different game (say a point-buy based system where points accrue quickly, even a small number can be spent on something, and any waiting for something big pays off immediately upon obtaining the cost) the answer can be different.

The reaction I have to the +1 issue is about the same as I would have if the benefits of the Dodge->Mobility feat chain in 3e were like this:
Dodge: You qualify for Mobility. (But you don't get the actual bonus to AC.)
Mobility: You gain the benefits of the actual Dodge and Mobility feats.
Yes, it can get to the same place in the end, but I have to wait a couple levels, and there is no guarantee I'll ever get there.

Or, say you can vote in an election with the following choices:
1) Get 1 vote in the current election.
2) Get 2 votes in the following election, but none now.

If elections were every four years I probably wouldn't defer it, although there could be strategic exceptions. If there were an election every day I might defer, maybe even often. If it is unlikely there will be another election in my lifetime I'd definitely not do it.