New Design & Development: Feats

[Wepwawet]

If someone wants to play a duel warhammer fighting cleric of the god of war.. they should be able to learn it with a feat, not buy being forced to take levels of rouge or ranger.

In this case it makes perfect sense that you go to some fighting school to improve your warrior skills, and pause your cleric development for a while.
A god of war would totally be in favor of an adventuring cleric developping his fighting skills instead of satying in the convent reading books and studying religion.

If multiclassing rules were done properly, you shouldn't get much trouble for taking one or 2 levels in a class that fits your concept (unlike 3E)

I never quite liked feats in 3.5... There was an infinity of feats. Too much choices for my character and most of the feats I could not use, as they where designed for all the other classes. So I prefer this way better. Stuff meaningful to your PC is connected to the classes you have. And general stuff useful to anyone stays as feats.

 

[Warbringer]

But the math also "matches up" if you use the normal ability score modifiers + 1/2 Level, which happens to be the much more likely formulation for skill bonuses.

Like he said...

This is the sacred mechanic in 4 + 1/2 Level, IMNSHO

 

[Ruvion]

Wyverns don't have to physically exist to name an organisation or a style after them. They just have to exist as an idea.

Dragon style kung fu exists in our world, yet dragons don't.

In my decidedly limited understanding of martial arts, I recall there being more creature names based on real world examples such as: monkey, crane, mantis, etc...rather than fantasy creature like dragon. Anime and other such fantastic literatures usually have the more fantastic creature names such as pheonix strike and what have you. This, however, does not mean that D&D (being a game taking place on a fantastic world) should not use what can potentially be a set of non-campaign specific (meaning elements that do not belong to one's campaign) names...it may just grate on some sensibilities when compared to a more generic set of names. A fine balance to walk and tune I think.

 

[Najo]

If gold isn't in your game, then you've got more problems. Why aren't you complaining that everything has a Gold Piece value? And all treasures have GP listed? Because that's not in your campaign!

lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.

But the name of a feat, golden wyvern adept, that is something that is difficult to change reference to and not create confusion. Now, in the world they may not call it that, that is fine. But the player's will use it and it hurts the feel of the setting for them to keep saying they are using this power or that one.

I think as a whole, I am in the camp that wants function descriptive abilities and not colorfully named ones. WOTC is heading into dangerous ground with these new naming conventions. I think players overall won't like this approach. Most of the polls support this too.

 

[Ruvion]

It may decidedly hurt the immersion factor for some groups/campaigns, like you say.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They basically told us that this was the way it's going to be in the last podcast. They're trying to divide up the major tricks into classes, so that each class has a kind of shtick. They mentioned that the warlock is easy to design for because he doesn't have 30 years of baggage, but the big four are harder because everyone wants them to be all things.

Given what they've hinted about multiclassing, I don't see a big problem here. From the way it sounds so far, if you want Shot On The Run, you multiclass with rogue or ranger, and pick it from the list of powers. Since you're not actually a ranger (your class is fighter, not fighter/ranger), you don't get the rangery things (if they even exist anymore). You just borrow class abilities.

It strikes me as odd that basic combat abilities would be THAT tied to class though.

The sample feats are also pretty bland and weak seeming, with the exception of the wizard "fireball your party" feat.

 

[Rechan]

lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.

But the name of a feat, golden wyvern adept, that is something that is difficult to change reference to and not create confusion. Now, in the world they may not call it that, that is fine. But the player's will use it and it hurts the feel of the setting for them to keep saying they are using this power or that one.

And I say that it's the same.

Every time someone says gold or GP it breaks the immersion.

How may monsers have DR/Silver? How many things in D&D reference Silver? Hell, there are silver dragons. And if you don't have Silver in your campaign, MADNESS.

 

[Najo]

well there is an easy way to fix this...

copy and past the SRD when its out and rename the feats you want to rename (which I have a feeling will en dup being quite a few for my home games)

The abilities of the characters need to becareful how they are named. They need to easily convey their function to a new player, and they need to play the way the name sounds. Toughness is a good, easy to get name. Combat Expertise is good. Power attack is good (as a name). Whirlwind Attack, still good. First Reaction ...bad. Golden Wyvern adept is bad too. Another example is the epic spell 'I see you' I think it was called. Plain silly.

Magic items, monsters and other objects and creatures that exist in the game can be removed or changed if there is something the DM doesn't feel fits in their game.

Player class features (skills, feats, talents, abilities, etc) do not have this luxury, they are the language of the game for the players. Coating these features of the game with overly colorful, setting implying, mood-based names is a bad move over all.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

In this case it makes perfect sense that you go to some fighting school to improve your warrior skills, and pause your cleric development for a while.
A god of war would totally be in favor of an adventuring cleric developping his fighting skills instead of satying in the convent reading books and studying religion.

If multiclassing rules were done properly, you shouldn't get much trouble for taking one or 2 levels in a class that fits your concept (unlike 3E)

I never quite liked feats in 3.5... There was an infinity of feats. Too much choices for my character and most of the feats I could not use, as they where designed for all the other classes. So I prefer this way better. Stuff meaningful to your PC is connected to the classes you have. And general stuff useful to anyone stays as feats.

And I had the exact opposite feeling. If you want to learn to punch someone, you shouldnt have to go train at a monastary. Classes have baggage, feats are bite sized abilities.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

lol, not quite. Let's say I am running a Dark Sun campaign. Gold is scarce and the common coin is a ceramic piece. The rules let me easily treat 1 gold as 1 ceramic piece for non-metal items ... etc.

Its probably referring to the color. Moreover, if you're running a darksun game, you need to rebalance the entire PHB anyways. You've got bigger fish to fry.