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.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Modularity in 5th Edition with respect to 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="Evenglare" data-source="post: 6121402" data-attributes="member: 63245"><p>With the recent announcement of feats and classes gaining them at different rates brings up the question of modularity. Now, I have not heard in a while about the modularity of 5th edition, so I'm not sure if it's actually still a design goal. Assuming it is, I have doubts about how they will pull this off especially when you start tieing different elements of games together in an intrinsic way, such as classes and feats. To me modularity can satisfy a couple of different goals to be integrated successfully. Either it's a part of the game you add to, or it's a layer of the game that you can add or take away from. Those are my definitions of modularity and as such I will be speaking from a viewpoint of these axioms. </p><p></p><p>Let me first address adding or subtracting parts of the game. A module in this sense is what 4th edition (in my opinion) excels at. You can allow or disallow fundamental parts of the game and when you play that game it works like the basic game. For example, you could introduce or take away a power source. Once this happens more or fewer classes are added or taken away but it does not detract from the overall gameplay mechanic. Pathfinder has done this with Kingmaker, adding another "part" to the game in which you build and manage kingdoms, which does not infringe on any other part of the game. Modularity in this sense adds something to the system that does not detract from other parts of the system. In 5th edition, they began doing this early on with skills and backgrounds. In the early drafts of the game it said something to the effect of "don't use this if you would like to experience and old school feel". I LOVED this, absolutely LOVED it. The fact that skills and backgrounds could be added or taken away from the game was a fantastic idea and felt very true to this type of modular design. Skills added another part to the game. As far as I can tell skills and backgrounds have been integrated into the fundamental game, but I digress as a gamemaster it would not be hard to simply abolish this and sever the limb of the game. </p><p></p><p>Now we get into the other part of modularity. An overlay to the game to make the game more or less complex. I believe that the "feat idea" lies in this realm of modularity. In 3rd edition 4th edition, and pathfinder feats were gained at an advancement rate that was non class specific. In other words you gained a feat every so often (this precludes bonus feats, in this case bonus feats are simply taken as integrated class features and not actual feats themselves). Now 5th edition had a very unique opportunity to address this explicitly with modular game design. In all the above mentioned games you COULD have removed feats from the game entirely effectively removing a layer of complexity to the game. The games would still have been playable without impacting the games fundamental rules. As an aside pathfinder does this layering extremely, extremely well with their class design. Since classes gain things at regular intervals these abilities can be overlaid with OTHER abilities thus giving us these archetypes, which I think is an INGENIOUS move on their part. This is modularity at it's finest. Now I'm personally a 13th age player, but pathfinder is the model of modularity that I would look to should I want such a thing in my game.</p><p></p><p>So with 5th edition deciding to marry feats to classes, does this further their modularity goal? I tend to think it does not. This is saddening to me as I know many older edition players were looking forward to a game where they would not even NEED feats. Is modularity one of the parts of 5th edition they still have in their sights? Is there anything to suggest this or otherwise? I have not heard anything recently about this goal. It seems to me if modularity were to go away it would destroy one of the most fundamental goals of the game which is unification of players across all editions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Evenglare, post: 6121402, member: 63245"] With the recent announcement of feats and classes gaining them at different rates brings up the question of modularity. Now, I have not heard in a while about the modularity of 5th edition, so I'm not sure if it's actually still a design goal. Assuming it is, I have doubts about how they will pull this off especially when you start tieing different elements of games together in an intrinsic way, such as classes and feats. To me modularity can satisfy a couple of different goals to be integrated successfully. Either it's a part of the game you add to, or it's a layer of the game that you can add or take away from. Those are my definitions of modularity and as such I will be speaking from a viewpoint of these axioms. Let me first address adding or subtracting parts of the game. A module in this sense is what 4th edition (in my opinion) excels at. You can allow or disallow fundamental parts of the game and when you play that game it works like the basic game. For example, you could introduce or take away a power source. Once this happens more or fewer classes are added or taken away but it does not detract from the overall gameplay mechanic. Pathfinder has done this with Kingmaker, adding another "part" to the game in which you build and manage kingdoms, which does not infringe on any other part of the game. Modularity in this sense adds something to the system that does not detract from other parts of the system. In 5th edition, they began doing this early on with skills and backgrounds. In the early drafts of the game it said something to the effect of "don't use this if you would like to experience and old school feel". I LOVED this, absolutely LOVED it. The fact that skills and backgrounds could be added or taken away from the game was a fantastic idea and felt very true to this type of modular design. Skills added another part to the game. As far as I can tell skills and backgrounds have been integrated into the fundamental game, but I digress as a gamemaster it would not be hard to simply abolish this and sever the limb of the game. Now we get into the other part of modularity. An overlay to the game to make the game more or less complex. I believe that the "feat idea" lies in this realm of modularity. In 3rd edition 4th edition, and pathfinder feats were gained at an advancement rate that was non class specific. In other words you gained a feat every so often (this precludes bonus feats, in this case bonus feats are simply taken as integrated class features and not actual feats themselves). Now 5th edition had a very unique opportunity to address this explicitly with modular game design. In all the above mentioned games you COULD have removed feats from the game entirely effectively removing a layer of complexity to the game. The games would still have been playable without impacting the games fundamental rules. As an aside pathfinder does this layering extremely, extremely well with their class design. Since classes gain things at regular intervals these abilities can be overlaid with OTHER abilities thus giving us these archetypes, which I think is an INGENIOUS move on their part. This is modularity at it's finest. Now I'm personally a 13th age player, but pathfinder is the model of modularity that I would look to should I want such a thing in my game. So with 5th edition deciding to marry feats to classes, does this further their modularity goal? I tend to think it does not. This is saddening to me as I know many older edition players were looking forward to a game where they would not even NEED feats. Is modularity one of the parts of 5th edition they still have in their sights? Is there anything to suggest this or otherwise? I have not heard anything recently about this goal. It seems to me if modularity were to go away it would destroy one of the most fundamental goals of the game which is unification of players across all editions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Modularity in 5th Edition with respect to feats.
Top