New Design & Development: Feats

[Aage]

I was really, really looking forward to 4E as a marked improvement for D&D...until I got the impression that there was going to be even more Straightjacketing than 3E, which dropped my enthusiasm quite a bit.

Defenders shouldn't avoid attacks, but absorb them! Fighter with a bow? I don't think so!

Sigh.

If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here. Want spring attack? Pick it up as a rogue talent with multiclassing. Same thing for some ranger archery stuff. Seems great to me

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here.

If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.

It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.

 

[Jinete]

It wont help you if yout don't like the names in general. It helps you if you find it to much work to tinker with published stuff like classes, feats or spells until they fit your homebrew.
Apart from that, it's not like D&D has ever been an absolutly setting neutral game. There has been always stuff in the corebooks that wouldnt fit in somebodys selfmade campaign world and that's all i tried to point put, dude.

I'm not worried that there will be stuff in the corebook that won't fit in everybodys homebrew, people like to change core a bit if only to give their setting a more original feel.

What I'm worried about is the general look & feel of D&D. This includes art, races, classes, deities and names.

Like you said, I'm worried I won't like the names in general. What am I supposed to to then? Change the name of every wizard school, spell and feat and insist that my players do the same?

 

[Aage]

If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.

It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.

Yes, that is my hope and vision

And there is a meaningful decision: Do I learn another clerical spell, or pick up some lockpicking skills, or some fighting ability...etc ?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Feats and spells? Much more often, even on the table, as in "Hey, pass the book, I need to look up 'Golden Wyvern Adept'!" - then you have the flavour at the table.

Cheers, LT.

I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...

 

[BryonD]

I think that's the intent (and that might be the crux). It's an attempt to make the whole game feel less technical and more evocative.
That seems (is) unnecessary for many of us, because adding flavor and imagination to the game is not something we need rules for, because we build our own settings and adventures anyway. But for the beginning player, the Core rulebooks probably shouldn't really read like a mere toolbox. Once he is ready for the homebrew stuff, he can get rid of the Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts, and only mention it on the message boards he travels to get more cool ideas for his setting or an understanding of the rules...

Exactly.

Looked at in the extreme case it could be said that not only are they afraid we can't handle complicated rules and they need to simplify that for us poor confused strugglers, but we also just don't have the knack of this whole "imagination, roleplaying" thing, so they need to spoon feed us that as well.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

If multiclassing carries no penalty (indeed, by the hints it seems you can even keep your original class) than I don't see a problem here. Want spring attack? Pick it up as a rogue talent with multiclassing. Same thing for some ranger archery stuff. Seems great to me

The exact reason I threw out multiclassing penalties in my 3.x games. I saw a feat as a special thing you could do, and a class level as a package of skills you got. The flavor was in the character, and his particular fit of abilities. When I ran classes, aside from some special PrCs and Paladins to an extent, there was not "fluff/baggage" with a class - it was just a special package of abilities you learned. When the Gestalt rules hit, I jumped all over them too (I tended to have small groups with only two or three PCs, that helped cover the "roles").

I fully expect to do the same kind of thing if/when I play 4th ed.

 

[Njall]

If multiclassing carries NO penalty, then the game is essentially classless: a big heaping barrel of feats and powers than anyone can pick and choose freely from.

It's safe to say that multiclassing will carry SOME penalty. It will involve some form of informed, meaningful decision.

We can't really say that, though.
Say classes are build like they are in SWSE: class talents at odd levels, bonus feats at even levels.
Now, assume all classes have similar progressions, as it is rumored...thus, you improve your fighting capabilities through talents more than BAB; same goes for spellcasting: a "spell", or a set of "spells" is a talent you take (take a look at SWSE...force powers are gained through the "force training" feat...make it a class talent, et voilà).
Now, if you're a spellcaster, your talents make your spells more powerful ( for exemple, you have a talent that gives +1 to hit with spells, or another one that adds +1d6 damage to all your spells, etc...), similar to metamagic feats.
There is no specific "caster level", and your spell's effects are based on character level.

This way, multiclassing is easy: each class is a collection of abilities more than a career path.
Want to multiclass into fighter? Sure, take a level as a fighter, grab TWF and back into cleric. Your spellcasting capabilities are not hampered ( since they're based on character level ) and you got the talent you wanted.
Where's the catch, then? The "catch" is that you lost the opportunity to take a "spellcasting" talent, much like in 3e you'd have lost the opportunity to take, say, Divine Metamagic for that TWF feat.
The multiclassed character is not overpowered ( assuming all the classes are balanced ), and neither he's underpowered, since his spellcasting is not suffering a huge hit like it would have in 3.x, but it's still slightly worse than a "pure" spellcaster due to that missed +1 to hit or +1d6 damage.
Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.

 

[Aage]

We can't really say that, though.
Say classes are build like they are in SWSE: class talents at odd levels, bonus feats at even levels.
Now, assume all classes have similar progressions, as it is rumored...thus, you improve your fighting capabilities through talents more than BAB; same goes for spellcasting: a "spell", or a set of "spells" is a talent you take (take a look at SWSE...force powers are gained through the "force training" feat...make it a class talent, et voilà).
Now, if you're a spellcaster, your talents make your spells more powerful ( for exemple, you have a talent that gives +1 to hit with spells, or another one that adds +1d6 damage to all your spells, etc...), similar to metamagic feats.
There is no specific "caster level", and your spell's effects are based on character level.

This way, multiclassing is easy: each class is a collection of abilities more than a career path.
Want to multiclass into fighter? Sure, take a level as a fighter, grab TWF, and back into cleric. Your spellcasting capabilities are not hampered ( since they're based on character level ) and you got the talent you wanted.
Where's the catch, then? The "catch" is that you lost the opportunity to take a "spellcasting" talent, much like in 3e you'd have lost the opportunity to take, say, Divine Metamagic for that TWF feat.
The multiclassed character is not overpowered ( assuming all the classes are balanced ), and neither he's underpowered, since his spellcasting is not suffering a huge hit like it would have in 3.x.
Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.

If it doesn't work this way I'm house-ruling it

 

[Wormwood]

Admittedly, it's all speculation, but it could well work this way.

That would be the ideal system, IMHO.