FitzTheRuke
Legend
Man, took me an hour to fill it out, and I don't even think that I was particularly wordy.
Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.1st level feats and 4th level feats should be balanced with eachother when you ignore the +1 ASI on 4th level feats. 1st level feats should then have a clause that if you take them after level 1 you get a +1 ASI. this way some stuff is still level gated, and level 1 is still mostly utility and theme stuff, but level 1 feats aren't a trap option after level 1.
this works also.Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.
I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)Ritual Caster is great. More like this, please.
Agree,I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)
When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party.
Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!![]()
This. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI systemHeck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.
we aren't sure about this, but at least in theory... but still we have only guessing to goThis. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI system
I like that, too.Heck, just change the background ASIs to be +1 to two different ability scores, then say you get +1 to an ability score of your choice whenever you gain a Feat. Gets rid of an unnecessary distinction between 1st level feats and 4th level feats, and gets rid of the awkward “you can take a +2 and a +1 or three +1s,” while still functionally working out that way.
I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.This. But my understanding is that Monsters of the Multiverse doesn't change with 1D&D, so they're a bit locked into the current race ASI system
Yep, and it’s pretty clear that there is no incompatibility between the two designs. You get one set of ASIs at chargen. The only issue is it makes the Tasha’s option for floating ASI redundant.I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.
True, so there is hope!I mean, there’s already a packet with the starting ASIs coming from background instead of race.
In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.I've not seen anyone say this. As is, it seems to be just a variation on Magic Initiate with an ASI. I find Ritual Caster a great disappointment (and would encourage everyone to say so, please!)
When I have had ritual casters, it allows me to play a mundane character who has magic, but isn't magic. You aren't using it in combat (that's what Initiate does), but it gives access to useful out-of-combat abilities that can support a party.
Limiting to first-level rituals means that waterbreathing, augury, silence, etc. remain out of reach, and you lose the ritual-book-building minigame. Has anyone thought the original Ritual Caster was overpowered or game breaking? -- let us ritualists have our small helpful magic!![]()
I think this is a flawed way of approaching things & that it causes caster feats to often be unappealingly bland. Rather than making a ritual caster feat that appeals to casters who have spell slots & likely a selection of ritual spells of their own the ritual caster feat is designed primarily for "what if a noncaster wants rituals" first last & only. That could be solved & make ritual caster a plausibly interesting feat choice if it allowed the ritual book to scribe first level rituals or rituals of any spell level the caster has slots provided the ritual is from the selected list... but it doesn't consider things like that so it's just bland for everyone.In the survey, I suggested disconnecting Rituals from Spells entirely.
Have one list for Spells. Have a separate list for Rituals.
Rituals dont use spell slots, they take minutes to perform, fulfill different purposes, are mainly for the exploration pillar, and belong to a separate part of the game engine.
Use any Mental Ability Check to determine the success of a ritual.
Let noncaster Classes perform rituals too. If a Fighter finds a scroll with instructions for a Ritual, no problem.
Why is there a choice between a feat and an ASI? Why not make allow PCs to take both as independent features? Combining them to me leads to two problems:
- Game designers now have to consider balancing a feat against an ASI on top of all other design considerations
- Players now have to choose between a mechanically beneficial ASI and an interesting feat
Also, a feat every four levels seems too infrequent. Actually, that's another benefit of separating ASIs from feats: you don't have to constrain desired feat progression by the desired ASI progression.
The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.I haven't playtested any of this so I left most questions with the Not Sure option. I took the survey just so I could write this:
Now they are making all feats basically half feats with +1 ASI.The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.
This assumes that they are leaning into having feats be mandatory. Which is the impression I get from having a Background grant a Feat (granted that this is just a playtest thing).The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.
Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.The obvious issue is that there are still tables out there that don't want to use feats. So putting in more feat slots and splitting them off from ASIs makes using feats more of a necessity, which is the opposite of where they want the game to go.
As it stands at the moment, they will have one feat in the one that comes with Backgrounds. But that's basically the equivalent of the Background Feature you got with the 2014 Backgrounds, except that it now includes some mechanics, rather that the purely RP benefit of old. Other than that though, the rest of the "feats" can just be ASIs for those that want it that way.
If you separate the two... that means the tables that don't want to use feats will be getting twice as many ASIs as they do right now by needing to use the "ASI feat" in all the feat slots they are now getting... plus then the straight ASIs. Maybe some tables would be okay with seeing PC ability scores grow doubly like that than they do in the 2014 game... but I would have to imagine that's not exactly what a lot of people are looking for either?Let's assume the next edition does things as you say: feats are optional. What is the benefit of combining feats and ASIs? Having them both live in the same design space creates headaches as I outlined earlier. I'm suggesting separating the two.
The downside of separating them is what I outlined in my previous post. To me, that is a much smaller problem for the game designers to deal with than the ones that fall out of combining feats and ASIs. Putting the two together creates a very weird design rigidity that will cause them issues now and more down the road.