D&D 5E Legends & Lore 7/21/14

[FadedC]

I'm fairly certain that they have and that the majority of players will choose an extra feat over +1 to their 4 least important stats. The extra skill is just a bonus.

The position I'm trying to take myself is something like, I want to believe that the game I''ll spend my money on is well designed, and so the designers must have carefully thought out why feat+skill is worth giving up four +1.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For many casters it's not the issue of going into melee and losing their concentration buff, it's losing it over ranged attacks and the fact that a fireball can dispel magic now due to the save to keep concentration rule for damage.

 

[vecna00]

For many casters it's not the issue of going into melee and losing their concentration buff, it's losing it over ranged attacks and the fact that a fireball can dispel magic now due to the save to keep concentration rule for damage.

^This.

No matter how good your group is, no matter how you play your caster, this can still happen.

 

[Mouseferatu]

^This.

No matter how good your group is, no matter how you play your caster, this can still happen.

As it should. Sometimes, you're just going to lose a concentration spell. The game's designed to allow for that; I doubt there'll ever be too many ways to mitigate it. It's part of the risk of spellcasting.

 

[skotothalamos]

^This.

No matter how good your group is, no matter how you play your caster, this can still happen.

Take a level in Fighter or any other class that brings Shield proficiency, then get Shield Mastery and avoid the enemy fireball damage altogether.

 

[Xodis]

I dont normally play a magic user, but I'll say I'm feeling like making the save is going to get me out of any of "Save or Suck" situations more often then concentration breaking. As for buffs, if you are getting hammered and losing concentration, maybe you should have picked better buffs

 

[vecna00]

Take a level in Fighter or any other class that brings Shield proficiency, then get Shield Mastery and avoid the enemy fireball damage altogether.

Curse you, Shield Mastery!! Why must you be so good?

 

[SkidAce]

Me too. I feel a song coming on. What's that? ....


I...want...my.......

I...want...my.....

I want my PHB......

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You run your game without the PHB
That ain't gaming, thats the way you run it
Playin for nothin cause the game is free

...snip...

Now that ain't playing that's the way you run it
You play the game without the PHB
That ain't playing that's the way you run it
Playin for nothin' cause your game is free
Playin for nothin'and the game is free

Brilliant!

 

[Mistwell]

I used to think the same, but then I considered that:

- when you can take a feat, you take in instead of +1 to two ability scores (or +2 to one)
- the human race gets +1 to six ability scores OR +1 to two and a skill and a feat

Basic math suggests that a feat is worth two +1, and a skill prof is also worth two +1.

Advanced "math" considerations (which is what us gamers regularly use to post-justify whatever side/position we've already taken) can shift the value of that skill up or down, as you wish. For instance, if you want to proove that the skill is worth less than 2 score increases, you can focus on saying that six +1 is worth less than 3 feats because those could technically be given up for a +6 in a single score. But you could also argue that extra skill profs are potentially more worth than a single +1 (the skill is narrow but it''ll take a +12 to a score to achieve the same result), esp. if they're generally hard/expensive to acquire (depends on whether feats grant them or not), and blablabla...

The position I'm trying to take myself is something like, I want to believe that the game I''ll spend my money on is well designed, and so the designers must have carefully thought out why feat+skill is worth giving up four +1.

You can take a feat, or you can take +2 to one ability. That's the balance. The balance is not based on humans as a race. Humans as a race involves way too many factors of the value of other racial abilities, the inability to get a +2 in one ability, the value of boosting your least important abilities, flavor issues, setting issues, the value of a feat at first level instead of later, the balance of optional abilities, etc..

So no, I don't buy your analysis that the way to measure the value of a feat (or a skill) is based on what a human can do as an option at first level with feats. We know how feats were balanced, and it was not off of the human racial stuff.

 

[Juriel]

Yeah, Humans aren't a good measuring stick. Feat at 1st level is the only thing making them a remotely valid option, compared to all the goodies the demihumans get.

As is, until your power stat hits 20, a feat or 2 stat points seems like a balanced choice to make (feat allows you to do more interesting things, stats give you power).

A single skill prof is nowhere near to being worth 2 stat points or a feat (or we'd see nothing but Elves, who get Perception for free, and that's a grade-A skill).