The tweets from Mearls are really good IMO. If someone can't be bothered to pick a feat, a +1 will always do nicely. Bravo.
Agreed with +ses need to be per ability score bump, so ability mods = score - 15 or something would be very classic AD&D and mean you have a very good reason to not waste all your point buy points, or feats, bumping up stats. Power gamer or lucky rollers can min-max the cost/benefits of whether dual wielding is then better to take after str 16 or 18, or perhaps boost their dex to 18. I like the level tiers for feats, I never had a problem with that in 4e, except the retraining-in-advance planning that required was absurd. If you pick a stat, you should be stuck with it.
And there should be magic books that grant feats to bump int or cha or wis when you read them, as as droughts to boost the physical stats. So your DM could say you can't pick them at will, but should find some scattered throughout your adventures, if you plan well and seek them out. Similar to Elder Scrolls. Although, reading every single book that you see can be z-skipped.
I also agree that wizards need less stat boost and less feats than fighters, their spells already are their customization. I don't want classes with the same rates of progression, and uniformity is one of the main things I disliked about 4e (and 3e, as well, come to think of it...a wizard was much more powerful but still required the same XP...had they required geometric progression that would be a VERY easy way to balance things...but no). I loved feats when 3e first came out, especially with their little char gen computer app, I was so excited and googley eyed for D&D back then, ...I think they're gonna do a good job on this and thanks for listening to the community. By the end we'll really feel like it's our game, even though no one will get everything they want, hopefully the goodness of the game will convince the naysayers to adopt it. I want the game to be so good that people who detest it will find themselves thinking maybe it isn't so bad to actually be able to play in a group. Trust me, I felt that way here in Toronto a couple times since I moved here I considered plugging my nose and joining a 4e group (or Encounters sessions), but since playing Next decided I don't even want to play Pathfinder either, I want the next 'Next packet..new rules!
Agreed with +ses need to be per ability score bump, so ability mods = score - 15 or something would be very classic AD&D and mean you have a very good reason to not waste all your point buy points, or feats, bumping up stats. Power gamer or lucky rollers can min-max the cost/benefits of whether dual wielding is then better to take after str 16 or 18, or perhaps boost their dex to 18. I like the level tiers for feats, I never had a problem with that in 4e, except the retraining-in-advance planning that required was absurd. If you pick a stat, you should be stuck with it.
And there should be magic books that grant feats to bump int or cha or wis when you read them, as as droughts to boost the physical stats. So your DM could say you can't pick them at will, but should find some scattered throughout your adventures, if you plan well and seek them out. Similar to Elder Scrolls. Although, reading every single book that you see can be z-skipped.
I also agree that wizards need less stat boost and less feats than fighters, their spells already are their customization. I don't want classes with the same rates of progression, and uniformity is one of the main things I disliked about 4e (and 3e, as well, come to think of it...a wizard was much more powerful but still required the same XP...had they required geometric progression that would be a VERY easy way to balance things...but no). I loved feats when 3e first came out, especially with their little char gen computer app, I was so excited and googley eyed for D&D back then, ...I think they're gonna do a good job on this and thanks for listening to the community. By the end we'll really feel like it's our game, even though no one will get everything they want, hopefully the goodness of the game will convince the naysayers to adopt it. I want the game to be so good that people who detest it will find themselves thinking maybe it isn't so bad to actually be able to play in a group. Trust me, I felt that way here in Toronto a couple times since I moved here I considered plugging my nose and joining a 4e group (or Encounters sessions), but since playing Next decided I don't even want to play Pathfinder either, I want the next 'Next packet..new rules!
