Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6118701" data-attributes="member: 70709">I favor a single progression overall, despite my personal enjoyment of bonus feats and non-uniform character advancement generally.  As I see it, the major table options for any game where feats can be traded for ability score increases (or really any mechanical benefit) are as follows:1) The table chooses not to have feats or ability score increases.  The game should run well this way.2) The table lets people choose to use feats or not, but players who dislike them can use their lightweight default.  The game should run well this way.Tables using option 2 can make class-dependent feat progression work in terms of balance, at least in principle, because the fundamental unit of balance is the sum of class features plus feats (i.e. they go into a single "silo"), while the exact weight given to each isn't that critical.  For tables using option 1, however, the only unit of balance defined is class features and a class-dependent progression actually disrupts balance.In fact, a 3e-style system (shared progression plus class-dependent bonus feats) is less disruptive to option 1 than giving each class its own feat progression with no shared baseline.  With bonus feats at least it is clear which feats are supposed to contribute to class power, so one can ignore the baseline feats and just have a few bonus feats to deal with.  If every class has its own unique progression no such clear separation exists, especially once multiclassing gets involved.The realization I've had writing this post is that if WotC avoids class specific feat progressions then the game completely free of feats that many posters in this thread want is absolutely possible if the table is willing to give up ability score increases at the same time.  One could then have the following different takes:1) No feats or abilities scores increases for anyone.2) Feats or ability score increases, each player can decide and they can decide each time they get a feat.3) Feats or ability score increases, each player can decide when they first make the character, and must stick to it.4) Feats only.5) Ability score increases only.As long as the feat/+1 tradeoff is made smartly the game should run well at all of those tables.  The first table is at a globally different level of character power than the last 4, but some standard tweaks to encounter design could keep it easily playable with "standard" adventures.That might make design of some classes harder (as you noted casters vs. non-casters, but also the elements kerleth talks about above) but it could go a long way to making more people happy about the overall structure of the game.  I like feats a lot, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think if WotC had presented things such that feat and ability score increases taken as a unit are explicitly optional, and in a controlled way, the overall reception might have been sunnier.</blockquote>

Verification