Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6123425" data-attributes="member: 70709">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.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.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification