Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6158400" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>It was a snark remark on your idea that combining the smaller parts of which a mega-feat is made, would open design space, i.e. that it is an opportunity for designers to fill splatbooks with feats that grant X+Y+Z, A+B+C and then X+Y+A, X+Y+B, X+Y+C, X+Z+A, X+Z+B, X+Z+C, and so on and so on... </p><p></p><p>If that's a good opportunity based on having mega-feats that are easily "disassembable", I want to point out that we already had them disassembled in the first place when each part was a single, smaller feats.</p><p></p><p>This is why it reminded me of the +2/+2 feats: once they realized they could easily make more like the original Alertness, we started to see lots of them, while it would have been so much simpler to have one feat granting +2 to two skills of choice.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>I understand your idea that designing a bundle can be better for balance, for instance those Dodge+Mobility+SpringAttack together would have less problems if e.g. Mobility is used more rarely or worth less, as long as the whole package is worth right. A weak and a strong "sub-feat" together would compensate each other. </p><p></p><p>This is the way classes are designed, so that they don't have to worry if wizard's spells are much better than a wizard's knowledge bonus.</p><p></p><p>What I want to point out however, that this may not really be the best approach to feats for 2 reasons:</p><p></p><p>1) Feats are (or at least were, until now) meant to customize your PC on the smaller level, kind of like <em>fine-tuning</em>. Maybe one PC wanted to learn a new weapon, another wanted to shoot 2 arrows in the same round, the other one wanted to be more protected against poisons.</p><p></p><p>5e had a great idea for those who <em>don't</em> like fine-tuning: Specialties. Want to become a weapon-master, a sniper, or a poison master? Take the whole specialty, and let it suggest feats for you.</p><p></p><p>With mega-feats, we simply lose this level of fine-tuning (unless we want to wait until supplement #38 comes up with the "right" combination of sub-feats). We do not gain anything new, because we already had those "bundles" in the form of Specialties.</p><p></p><p>2) Classes, which use the "bundle" design approach, grant their abilities <em>gradually</em> over many levels. Feats grant their abilities immediately, all at once, so if we now have mega-feats, we are going to have significant complexity bumps whenever our PC gains a feat. Of course, spellcasters get similar (or bigger) bumps whenever they gain a new spell level, but still this is not so nice IMO, if we could just have the same spread over more levels (this assumes the rate of mega-feats will be 2-3 times slower than the current rate of feats by level, but it might not be so...).</p><p></p><p>They said before that mega-feats will be used to represent prestige classes. But the whole point of prestige classes was the <em>progression</em> of getting those abilities. Not that the 3ed prestige classes were usually a great design (they were not), they suffered from the opposite problem of being too "empty". Still, Specialties were much better in that regard, because they traced a progression rather than getting a sudden bump.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6158400, member: 1465"] It was a snark remark on your idea that combining the smaller parts of which a mega-feat is made, would open design space, i.e. that it is an opportunity for designers to fill splatbooks with feats that grant X+Y+Z, A+B+C and then X+Y+A, X+Y+B, X+Y+C, X+Z+A, X+Z+B, X+Z+C, and so on and so on... If that's a good opportunity based on having mega-feats that are easily "disassembable", I want to point out that we already had them disassembled in the first place when each part was a single, smaller feats. This is why it reminded me of the +2/+2 feats: once they realized they could easily make more like the original Alertness, we started to see lots of them, while it would have been so much simpler to have one feat granting +2 to two skills of choice. --- I understand your idea that designing a bundle can be better for balance, for instance those Dodge+Mobility+SpringAttack together would have less problems if e.g. Mobility is used more rarely or worth less, as long as the whole package is worth right. A weak and a strong "sub-feat" together would compensate each other. This is the way classes are designed, so that they don't have to worry if wizard's spells are much better than a wizard's knowledge bonus. What I want to point out however, that this may not really be the best approach to feats for 2 reasons: 1) Feats are (or at least were, until now) meant to customize your PC on the smaller level, kind of like [I]fine-tuning[/I]. Maybe one PC wanted to learn a new weapon, another wanted to shoot 2 arrows in the same round, the other one wanted to be more protected against poisons. 5e had a great idea for those who [I]don't[/I] like fine-tuning: Specialties. Want to become a weapon-master, a sniper, or a poison master? Take the whole specialty, and let it suggest feats for you. With mega-feats, we simply lose this level of fine-tuning (unless we want to wait until supplement #38 comes up with the "right" combination of sub-feats). We do not gain anything new, because we already had those "bundles" in the form of Specialties. 2) Classes, which use the "bundle" design approach, grant their abilities [I]gradually[/I] over many levels. Feats grant their abilities immediately, all at once, so if we now have mega-feats, we are going to have significant complexity bumps whenever our PC gains a feat. Of course, spellcasters get similar (or bigger) bumps whenever they gain a new spell level, but still this is not so nice IMO, if we could just have the same spread over more levels (this assumes the rate of mega-feats will be 2-3 times slower than the current rate of feats by level, but it might not be so...). They said before that mega-feats will be used to represent prestige classes. But the whole point of prestige classes was the [I]progression[/I] of getting those abilities. Not that the 3ed prestige classes were usually a great design (they were not), they suffered from the opposite problem of being too "empty". Still, Specialties were much better in that regard, because they traced a progression rather than getting a sudden bump. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats
Top