Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7700465" data-attributes="member: 45197"><p>Hiya!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I seem to remember saying the same thing in some other thread (probably about feats/classes, iirc) a couple months ago. The way 5e is "set up", it's <em>perfect</em> for this! AND, the beauty part, you don't need f'ing "Feats" or "Multiclassing" to do it. <em>"But how?"</em>, you say, <em>"Everyone knows it's impossible to differentiate one Fighter from the next without using Feats!"</em>...two ways that are built into the system: archtypes and backgrounds.</p><p></p><p>If more "crunch" simply 'must' be produced, rather than a book of feats (or three), I'd much rather see new archtypes and backgrounds. Best case...put these in a "theme focused book", as I mentioned above a "Dungeoneers Survival Guide" could have one or two archtypes for each class; that right there opens up a poop-ton of differences...add in a few pages of new backgrounds, and add a couple of new skills or uses of standard ones, toss in a few pages of new spells for clerics and wizards...that's multi-pages of 'crunch'.</p><p></p><p>Alas, "the masses" all screaming for more feats just want more feats. Why? The more feats, the more chances of "finding that special loophole to make an uber character". Now before you get the rope and horses, I'm <em><strong>not saying</strong></em> that all people wanting more feats are munckins...but I <em>am</em> saying that all munckins (in 5e) want more Feats. When one OPTIONAL thing in a game system is pretty much an absolute requirement for munchkins to min/max/power-game the system...then the writers of the game need to look at <em>why</em> and they need to be <em><u>extremely</u></em> careful in if, when and how they add new ones. IMHO, or course.</p><p></p><p>Can Feats be used for "good" character creation? Absolutely! But that isn't the problem that me and my group have. Our problem with them is that they simply add stuff to the character (not change/modify/focus), and that a fighter who wants to be really good with the two handed sword, and another fighter who wants to be good with the two handed sword...well, if one takes GWM, the other one pretty much <em>has to</em> take GWM. Otherwise, he will 'suck' compared to the fighter that took the feat. From then on, any and every fighter (or 'warrior type') who wants to be the front-line damage dealer type brute...<em>will always take GWM</em>! To me, this is the exact <em>opposite</em> of what the feats were trying to do...make each character more 'special' or 'unique'. It was to keep, for example, all fighters with two handed swords from looking exactly the same (mechanics wise, at least). There should have been, like, six "GWM" type feats...each with a slightly different take on using a two handed weapon, each with different 'bonuses'. Maybe one focuses on damage over accuracy, one on accuracy over damage, one on fighting multiple opponents at once, one with a nice averaging of damage and accuracy, etc. That way it's not just "one required feat if you want to do X". This leads me to...</p><p></p><p>I believe I said this in another thread (I think it was here on EnWorld). WotC dropped the ball...<em>again</em>... with regards to Feats. They keep making the exact same mistake that 3e did: having feats just "add too" a character with nothing "subtracted from". There should be a trade off for ALL feats, IMHO (and no, "but you don't get the ASI" isn't quite the same thing...a good start, but not enough). Taking GWM will make you really good at damage dealing up front. However, there should have been a drawback... "<em>Because the character has trained almost exclusively with two handed weapons, they have -2 to hit and damage with all 1-handed weapons. They also have very little knowledge of missile weapon tactics and use, so suffer Disadvantage on to-hit rolls with missile weapons</em>". Something like that. What you <em>can't</em> do defines your character just as much as what he <em>can</em> do...if not moreso.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, this is derailing the thread a bit I think. Splat books...don't much care for them if they focus on "primarily crunch for characters" and are just books with 'stuff' in them. That's fine once every three to five years (ala "Unearthed Arcana" for 1e, for example), but it's not something I want to see every six months. Theme-Focused books, IMHO, would be the best way to go to introduce "PC crunch" if they must, but smaller "very narrowly focused" books, like a "book of martial feats", "book of arcane feats" etc. would be fine too...makes them really easy for me and my group to just ignore. But making "book of martial characters" that contains new archtypes, equipment, feats, backgrounds, classes, rules, etc? This is the worst thing they could do for me and my group. We may want to use the archtypes and backgrounds, and maybe some of the equipment, and some of the rules...but all the pages of feats, classes, equipment we don't want, rules we will never use, etc, is all just wasted space and money. Which makes it FAR less for any of us to buy.</p><p></p><p>*sigh* I guess the old saying is holding up pretty well... <em>You can't please all of the people, all of the time!</em> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>^_^</p><p></p><p>Paul L. Ming</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pming, post: 7700465, member: 45197"] Hiya! I seem to remember saying the same thing in some other thread (probably about feats/classes, iirc) a couple months ago. The way 5e is "set up", it's [I]perfect[/I] for this! AND, the beauty part, you don't need f'ing "Feats" or "Multiclassing" to do it. [I]"But how?"[/I], you say, [I]"Everyone knows it's impossible to differentiate one Fighter from the next without using Feats!"[/I]...two ways that are built into the system: archtypes and backgrounds. If more "crunch" simply 'must' be produced, rather than a book of feats (or three), I'd much rather see new archtypes and backgrounds. Best case...put these in a "theme focused book", as I mentioned above a "Dungeoneers Survival Guide" could have one or two archtypes for each class; that right there opens up a poop-ton of differences...add in a few pages of new backgrounds, and add a couple of new skills or uses of standard ones, toss in a few pages of new spells for clerics and wizards...that's multi-pages of 'crunch'. Alas, "the masses" all screaming for more feats just want more feats. Why? The more feats, the more chances of "finding that special loophole to make an uber character". Now before you get the rope and horses, I'm [I][B]not saying[/B][/I] that all people wanting more feats are munckins...but I [I]am[/I] saying that all munckins (in 5e) want more Feats. When one OPTIONAL thing in a game system is pretty much an absolute requirement for munchkins to min/max/power-game the system...then the writers of the game need to look at [I]why[/I] and they need to be [I][U]extremely[/U][/I] careful in if, when and how they add new ones. IMHO, or course. Can Feats be used for "good" character creation? Absolutely! But that isn't the problem that me and my group have. Our problem with them is that they simply add stuff to the character (not change/modify/focus), and that a fighter who wants to be really good with the two handed sword, and another fighter who wants to be good with the two handed sword...well, if one takes GWM, the other one pretty much [I]has to[/I] take GWM. Otherwise, he will 'suck' compared to the fighter that took the feat. From then on, any and every fighter (or 'warrior type') who wants to be the front-line damage dealer type brute...[I]will always take GWM[/I]! To me, this is the exact [I]opposite[/I] of what the feats were trying to do...make each character more 'special' or 'unique'. It was to keep, for example, all fighters with two handed swords from looking exactly the same (mechanics wise, at least). There should have been, like, six "GWM" type feats...each with a slightly different take on using a two handed weapon, each with different 'bonuses'. Maybe one focuses on damage over accuracy, one on accuracy over damage, one on fighting multiple opponents at once, one with a nice averaging of damage and accuracy, etc. That way it's not just "one required feat if you want to do X". This leads me to... I believe I said this in another thread (I think it was here on EnWorld). WotC dropped the ball...[I]again[/I]... with regards to Feats. They keep making the exact same mistake that 3e did: having feats just "add too" a character with nothing "subtracted from". There should be a trade off for ALL feats, IMHO (and no, "but you don't get the ASI" isn't quite the same thing...a good start, but not enough). Taking GWM will make you really good at damage dealing up front. However, there should have been a drawback... "[I]Because the character has trained almost exclusively with two handed weapons, they have -2 to hit and damage with all 1-handed weapons. They also have very little knowledge of missile weapon tactics and use, so suffer Disadvantage on to-hit rolls with missile weapons[/I]". Something like that. What you [I]can't[/I] do defines your character just as much as what he [I]can[/I] do...if not moreso. Anyway, this is derailing the thread a bit I think. Splat books...don't much care for them if they focus on "primarily crunch for characters" and are just books with 'stuff' in them. That's fine once every three to five years (ala "Unearthed Arcana" for 1e, for example), but it's not something I want to see every six months. Theme-Focused books, IMHO, would be the best way to go to introduce "PC crunch" if they must, but smaller "very narrowly focused" books, like a "book of martial feats", "book of arcane feats" etc. would be fine too...makes them really easy for me and my group to just ignore. But making "book of martial characters" that contains new archtypes, equipment, feats, backgrounds, classes, rules, etc? This is the worst thing they could do for me and my group. We may want to use the archtypes and backgrounds, and maybe some of the equipment, and some of the rules...but all the pages of feats, classes, equipment we don't want, rules we will never use, etc, is all just wasted space and money. Which makes it FAR less for any of us to buy. *sigh* I guess the old saying is holding up pretty well... [I]You can't please all of the people, all of the time![/I] ;) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
Top