Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats

[Iosue]

Amazingly, there is nothing I like about this L&L.

I totally agree with tuxgeo on the attribute bumps. When it was only a +1 I could kind of see it, if you followed the current progression. I can kinda see characters maxing out their prime stat when they get to the higher levels, where they truly paragons and heroes. But +2? At what kind of rate? And considering that bumping an ability score improves one's saves, why would anyone chose a specialized feat in lieu of that?

What's more, I'm not even dignifying those example feats with comments or analysis. At this point, why the hell are we getting a look at un-edited, un-developed feats? They've had this idea for months now. We should be seeing it in the next packet, which is almost certainly coming out in August. Why aren't we getting a look at something they've actually been playtesting, something that will probably make the packet?

 

[MarkB]

The problem with these "toolkit" feats is that you only get their full power if you use all of them.

If you're looking for a Power Attack feat, but your character is already proficient in heavy martial weapons or doesn't intend to wield one, then Grand Weapon Master is devalued for you.

Likewise if you want to gain proficiency with a heavy maul but aren't interested in the risk/reward gamble of Power Attack.

And if you tend to have trouble keeping track of triggered abilities, then again, the feat is devalued.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you wanted big choices you already had them: they were called Specialties.

But each feat within a Specialty was pretty small. So now each feat contains nearly half a Specialty all by itself.

How about those who instead wanted to cherrypick feats and make their own specialty? Just until a couple of months ago, this was actually presented as a very positive feature of 5e, that some players could just make a big&simple choice while others could cherrypick.

I don't know why you can't cherrypick feats to build a specialty that is now BIGGER than the specialty before. Mearls gives two feats, either of which could work as part of a specialty.

Also, how are you going to like it, that at level X you get one BIG bump of character power, instead of more gradual bumps spread over 3 levels?

I like it. I'd rather get a few big bumps than panic over +1's. Life is short, give me the main course, don't fill me up on bread, I'm not here for bread.

All this is just because they pretend to equate a feat with +2 to an ability score, which is a LARGE bonus. And they want to equate with +2 because otherwise there is people complaining about odd vs even ability scores.

I'm not sure I follow you. This seems to have a lot of benefits, including that it's equal to a +2 ability score bump.

I think that if they just totally eliminated ability score increase by level (and leave it to Wish spells, Tomes and other powerful magic only), the whole design process will get a huge relief!

Eh. That's one way to do it, but you lose the sense of character development and growth that is the core of the level system in D&D. It'd make the game easier to design for if there were no levels or XP, too, but those are valuable things.

 

[jrowland]

I like it.

I liked specialties too, but I felt the game needed either a) the ability to gain an additional specialty at later levels or b) another "specialty" like track that you got at first level (a social/exploration specialty, eg).

I see this new direction for feats as essentially "1/2 specialties". So, assuming 1 at first and one every 4 levels after (1,4,8,12,16,20) that is roughly equivalent to 3 specialties by level 20. I like that a lot. Its fiddly enough without being too fiddly*.

I think the +2 or +1/+1 is a nice touch, but I also fear by level 20 we'll have characters with 14+ in every stat (even with a few mega-feats under their belt), but I think that is an easy fix with lower starting stats. Starting stats is an easier dial to turn, and one EVERY DM/TABLE should dial to suit them, but which is often not dialed, ever.

In practice, I expect most PCs to fall somewhere between 1 "specialty" (2 feats) + 4 ability bumps and 2 "specialties" (4 feats) + 2 ability bumps...i.e 3 feats and 3 ability bumps. That seems about right, and might mitigate the worry about ability score inflation.

*I take "fiddly" to mean "lots of simple stuff". It seems some people see the example feat (heavy armor master, eg) as "fiddly" since it has "lots of simple stuff". I suppose that's true, but I see 3e/4e feat SYSTEM as "fiddly" since each feat and the number of them are "lots of simple stuff". Its a matter of resolution. I err on the side of "number of places in the books a new player might have to look something." A dozen feats are a dozen entries. 4 feats are four entries. Yes, each of the meaty feats has the chimera effect of branching into other places to look up. But as long as the details interact with the basic game concepts its less of an issue assuming the new player knows the basic concept (armor class for example)

So Looking up:

Heavy Armor Proficiency (use heavy armor)
Armor Expertise (+1 AC)
Armor Mastery (Con as DR)

is 3 entries (and three other places where they interact with basic concept)

versus

Heavy Armor Master (Prof, +1 AC, Con as DR) with 3 other places where they interact with basic concepts.

ie, less fiddly


OK, thats enough, I'm rambling

 

[GX.Sigma]

I like this idea generally, but:

1. +2 every few levels? Unless characters start out with all 7s and 8s, I cannot see that working. With the current system, you start out with a 20 in your prime stat unless you rolled pretty bad.
2. I really hoped each feat would be "one big thing" instead of "a million fiddly things," since the whole problem with feats before was that they were a million fiddly things.

 

[I'm A Banana]

With the current system, you start out with a 20 in your prime stat unless you rolled pretty bad.

I'm seeing this kind of refrain a lot, and I think the "fix" is almost so obvious as to be implied: starting stats should be lower.

Like, 14-is-your-highest-stat lower. Like, ability-scores-below-8 lower.

Which, if we have a cap at 20, means that you can pump two 14's up to max, or you can spread it thinner and stop sucking so bad at other stuff.

I really hoped each feat would be "one big thing" instead of "a million fiddly things," since the whole problem with feats before was that they were a million fiddly things.

I'm in. I think double damage and an extra attack and Con-as-DR are big. I think -5 to hit and +1 AC are more fiddly. It's too fiddly now, but clearly on the right track.

 

[Klaus]

I'm seeing this kind of refrain a lot, and I think the "fix" is almost so obvious as to be implied: starting stats should be lower.

Like, 14-is-your-highest-stat lower. Like, ability-scores-below-8 lower.

In the current package, isn't 15 the highest you can point-buy? Add to that perfect class/race synergy and your highest stat can only be as high as 17 (and there's still the cap at 20... or is it 20 + racial modifier?).

Now, looking at these feats and the ability score-enhancing option, how many do you guys feel is a good average number to get in a 20-level span? In 3e we got 7 feats and 5 ability bumps.

I wonder... What if we offer the chance to trade in the class-based ability bump at 1st-level for a feat?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm seeing this kind of refrain a lot, and I think the "fix" is almost so obvious as to be implied: starting stats should be lower.

Like, 14-is-your-highest-stat lower. Like, ability-scores-below-8 lower.

I totally agree, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

 

[Balesir]

Then why did you allow it?

There are actually a whole raft of answers to this:

1) I was being just a tad sarcastic, as I personally don't regard "immersion" as anywhere close to the be-all and end-all of roleplaying.

2) I wasn't the GM - and the person who was didn't see it as their job to rule on how a player might go about playing their selected pixie-fairy (which is good for me, since I would be less than impressed by anyone who did, be they wearing some sort of daft DM viking hat or not).

3) Even if this were banned, all it would achieve would be to have the players with PA spend much more time doing the calculations on the fly every time.

Basically, if you have variable Power Attack, this is what you put up with if it's to be useful.

You can't blame the game for breaking your immersion when its the players themselves who are doing the breaking.

Of course not - but I can "blame the game" for having an array of features that I find detract from it when I play it. And I do - which ultimately leads me to not play it - no biggie, but it's feedback the designers might find useful.

 

[Blackbrrd]

In the current package, isn't 15 the highest you can point-buy? Add to that perfect class/race synergy and your highest stat can only be as high as 17 (and there's still the cap at 20... or is it 20 + racial modifier?).

Now, looking at these feats and the ability score-enhancing option, how many do you guys feel is a good average number to get in a 20-level span? In 3e we got 7 feats and 5 ability bumps.

I wonder... What if we offer the chance to trade in the class-based ability bump at 1st-level for a feat?

I think you can start with 15 from point buy, +2 from race, +1 from class, so 18. One stat buy and you are at the max, 20.

An interesting thing to note is that since you max out so quickly, and buying a 15 is expensive, it might be better for a "planned" character to start with 13 or 14 as the highest stat (before class/race) and rather have higher secondary stats. In other words, due to the 20 limit, optimizing might give us characters with lower stats.