Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats

[pemerton]

I just meant that non-combat abilities tend to be more situational on average, and also more difficult to measure than combat abilities, which are more often based on numbers or at least can be measured in terms of action economy.

OK. In 4e non-combat has its own numbers (mostly skill bonuses) and its own action economy (skill challenges).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't think feats that hit each of the three pillars need necessarily obviate styles of play where one or two pillars are less focused or removed from play. The feats could be designed to pack more impact into each of the three benefits, since the three would not be additive features. If all three are combat-related, then you have to make sure the additive powers don't exceed what you're shooting for.

 

[jrowland]

Another approach is to have "mega-feats" for each pillar...one could view the backgrounds as they are currently presented as a "mega-feat"...essentially your 1st level "mega-feat". Keep the combat ones as presented (cleaned up of course), and then all that is left is to add something for exploration, something resembling a "mega-feat", even if its called and/ore presented differently (like backgrounds, eg).

This way its easier to ignore a pillar entirely if needed for your table.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I think that subclasses, feats, backgrounds and specialties should all be bound into one single mechanic that touches on all pillars. It might require a bit of rejiggering and you would probably just be assigned one in the basic game depending on class. But as it is, it feels like a bunch of different mechanics are trying to inhabit the same space.

 

[Dausuul]

I think that subclasses, feats, backgrounds and specialties should all be bound into one single mechanic that touches on all pillars. It might require a bit of rejiggering and you would probably just be assigned one in the basic game depending on class. But as it is, it feels like a bunch of different mechanics are trying to inhabit the same space.

For feats, backgrounds, and specialties, I tend to agree. For that matter, I think skills could be merged into the feat mechanic as well.

However, one thing I would like 5E to avoid is having feats tied to a specific class. I can grudgingly accept feats that are limited to groups of classes (e.g., metamagic being usable only by spellcasters), but a feat that's only available to one class is too narrow a concept. Sub-classes ought to remain a distinct mechanic.

 

[Weather Report]

Why is this impossible? And why is non-combat so much more campaign dependent than combat?

One player in my 4e campaign has the bulk of his feats as non-combat ones (multiple skill trainings, linguist, ritual caster, etc) and also has an epic destiny whose 21st level benefit is non-combat (Sage of Ages, which grants +6 to all knowledge skills rather than the standard stat boost). As a result his PC is less effective in combat than some of the other PCs (though not too shabby) but clearly the single strongest PC in non-combat situations, especially those involving magic and lore. (But the same PC has a head slot item that boosts combat - bonuses to avoid dazing and stunning - whereas another PC whose feats are mostly, perhaps all, combat related has a head slot item that grants +2 to social skills.)

I don't think that balancing combat and non-combat need be all that hard, provided the non-combat abilities are clearly meaningful in play.

But in the meantime everyone is pretty much interchangeable.

 

[Weather Report]

OK. In 4e non-combat has its own numbers (mostly skill bonuses) and its own action economy (skill challenges).

Which is daft.

 

[Ratskinner]

Why is this impossible? And why is non-combat so much more campaign dependent than combat?
<snippage>
I don't think that balancing combat and non-combat need be all that hard, provided the non-combat abilities are clearly meaningful in play.

The part that's tricky is "provided the non-combat abilities are clearly meaningful in play." The problem is that D&D is (historically and critically speaking) a combat/wargame system which permits some roleplaying on the side. Which is to say, combat and non-combat utilize totally different architectures (when there is any non-combat architecture at all, anyway). This makes the application and utility of non-combat rules and features much less consistent than combat mechanics. I've run a game where the PCs were desperate to level up so they could take NWPs (2e) to learn new languages, even though there was plenty of fighting. I've also been in plenty of games like my current one where languages and non-combat are just about irrelevant, merely an irritant to be hand-waived by disbursing a Helm of Comprehend Languages. In a game where both are possible and accepted and encouraged playstyles, I don't see how you could possibly evaluate non-combat features against combat features in any meaningful way.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think that subclasses, feats, backgrounds and specialties should all be bound into one single mechanic that touches on all pillars. It might require a bit of rejiggering and you would probably just be assigned one in the basic game depending on class. But as it is, it feels like a bunch of different mechanics are trying to inhabit the same space.

So, what you're saying is, we should just have classes? That one single mechanic is called a class. When things are assigned depending on class that's a class. It's a class.

What am I missing?

 

[Manbearcat]

I like the move in theory and I had asked for feats to load-bear more weight of character build from the beginning. In a class based system (where you can't save up feats as you can save up points in a point-buy system), a smaller drizzle of power gain incrementally via lesser feats crowds out possibilities of powerful features (eg a Prestige Class's primary thematic and tactical features) or complex tactical options (eg a power system) delivered via the "feat" system. A feat system with more heft allows for (1) Prestige/Paragon Class/Path delivery in one bundle, (2) an assemblage of smaller combat style abilities picked a la carte (that can have varying power individually, so long as the aggregate of the bundled choices are equal in potency), or (3) a Powers/Exploits system (eg perhaps 2 encounter powers or 1 daily power per "feat").

It works, in theory, to deliver modularization, diversification, paragon/prestige classes, etc. Balancing it will be the difficult part, especially with lack of unification of the scheduling of these resources.