OneDnD One D&D Playtest Expert Classes survey is up! Update! Now due Nov 23rd.

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?

More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs. Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly. Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.
If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?
The idea is:
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.
 

The idea is:
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.
But having said that, it seems that the next edition is leaning towards mandatory feats, which makes this discussion pointless. Looking forward to your remarks.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
If you're a table not using feats... you just don't use feats. Not understanding the complexity you're introducing here. Twice as many ASIs? What are you talking about?
The idea is:
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs
  • I am at a table that uses ASIs and feats
If you use feats, you incorporate the COMPLETELY SEPARATE feat addition to the PC character level up structure. With the addendum I mentioned earlier.
I didn't realize your intention was for players who don't use feats to just ignore lines in the class charts that gave out feats at certain levels. I was not expecting that, which is why I was confused.

I was looking at it from the perspective we currently have (and as done in the playtest) wherein every time a Feat is offered in the chart... those players who don't want the 'special ability' that feats grant would instead select the "Ability Score Increase" feat that only just raised ASIs like normal. So with that methodology in my head, in your system of listing Feats at certain levels and ASIs at certain levels... I was thinking those "non-feat" players would be getting ASIs both in the Feat slot (taking the 'ASI' feat) and in the standard ASI slot you had in mind. I misunderstood you.

But having said that, it seems that the next edition is leaning towards mandatory feats, which makes this discussion pointless. Looking forward to your remarks.
"Mandatory" in as much as that they just renamed the 'Feat/ASI' feature to simply 'Feat' and made the Ability Score Increase into a "feat"-- which ends up not being a change at all other than terminology. The only so-called Feat that everyone might not get a "choice" in the matter is the Feat that comes with each Background. But as I said above... all the 2014 Backgrounds gave out a Feature that is essentially a Roleplaying Feat (even if not stated as such.) So the 2024 Backgrounds just give out that Feature again but this time with a couple game mechanics attached to it. If there are tables that are die-hard 'no Feats' players, they probably can just not use the mechanics the 2024 Backgrounds give them (or just reincorporate the Features of the 2014 Backgrounds-- not that I think most tables ever used those things much at all either, LOL.)
 

I was worried about mandatory feats. I allowed them in my games but the players (who are and are relatively new) just wasn't interested in them. The ASI feat seems to fix this. I've mentioned it in both surveys. It looks to be optional even though they are still using the term feat.
 






Parmandur

Book-Friend
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).

If they maintain status quo, though, then my concept makes PCs at tables which allow feats more powerful. But that is a power upgrade that targets all PCs equally. Which is a minimal adjustment for the DM... just throw more monsters, etc. to adjust for the increased party power level.

But it does seem (to me anyway) that they are implementing feats as mandatory.
The second packet is explicit that Feats are assumed, and ASI was just turned into one Feat option.
 

shadowoflameth

Adventurer
I completed the survey after listening to some feedback from my table. What I found:
Class Spell lists are still needed. Arcane, Primal and Divine are good but having them be the only lists makes character creation overly tedious and prone to errors.
The Bard suffers from missing spells he expects to get based on 5e and the Lore Bard loses his extra Magical Secrets. Magical secrets and bard spells being changeable is too much. Make Magical secrets set and give the Lore subclass back it's extra Magical Secrets. Inspiration on a reaction is OK.
The Rogue sneak attacking only on an action makes hide and wait for a target to appear using a readied action not work. This is the one that we really hated. No AOO and no laying in wait is bad.
The Ranger is on the right track, but needs his own spell list. Just like the bard, misses some spells that 5e players expect from the Ranger. I'd like to see the Favored Enemy still be a chosen foe. Instead of an altered Hunters Mark, just give him a similar ability that is not a spell. Let him use it on a foe deliberately, but say the Favored enemy is always affected by it. Have the damage scale. Now it can't be counter or dispelled, and doesn't cause confusion with how Hunter's Mark works. For similar reasons, just have Nature's Veil say that the when the Ranger successfully hides, he becomes Invisible. Which brings me to spells.
Conjure Barrage is weak. 'Down-casting' a weak spell is worse. Just make Multi-Attack, Multi-Shot and say that the Ranger gets a 3rd attack with Ranged or thrown weapons.
Make Barkskin affect AC but let it scale. It doesn't need to be reinvented and on the list of lackluster spells to redo it isn't the worst offender.
The Hidden Condition is good idea but clarify the language in the playtest. I recommend that instead of 'the condition ends', the condition stop affecting enemies that spot you, hear or or that you lose cover from.
The halfling didn't get inspiration because he has Luck and already has a remedy for the dreaded Natural 1.
I think it could be an optional rule anyway.
Epic Boons need to be truly epic. In the years playing 5e, we've had a campaign go to 18th level, one to 19th and one to 20th level. It's rare and it truly deserves something amazing. As an example; Being able to Misty Step once isn't better than the Feytouched feat which you can get much earlier and gives you more. Just make an epic boon that gives you teleportation.

My two cents. Of course, we haven't seen the rest of the design and these are playtest changes, but if we're using the 5e rules as is where there are no changes, this is what I see from where we stand.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
I suppose you could rule specifically that a rogue can sneak attack when using the attack action or when using their reaction to activate a held action. Covers ambush and excludes opportunity attacks.

I will also be bereft when my shadow mage swashbuckler can no long get sneak damage on her green flame blade. There must be a better way to mitigate damage stacking such as requiring the spellcasting class feature or something in the multiclass feature similar to what they do with spell slots.
 

Amrûnril

Adventurer
Just took the survey. It really is obnoxious to have one survey page asking about all of the glossary elements and then separate pages repeating some but not all of those questions.

It also seems silly to ask for ratings for the generic feat and subclass feature slots of the list of class features. Is my rating of the level 6 subclass feature supposed to be about the specific feature that they ask also about in the subclass section? The existing features in books they've already published? The hypothetical options we're going to see in future playtests? And do they really expect anyone to rate the level 12 Ranger feat differently from the level 8 Bard feat?

On the plus side at least there were plenty of opportunities to strongly disapprove of combined spell lists.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
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?

More feat slots, or splitting feats and ASIs just mean more locations where non-feat-using tables have to fill up with additional ASIs. Do that too much and those tables are going to have their primary 2 or more ability scores maxed at 20 fairly quickly. Which might be okay for some... but that's definitely something WotC will need to survey on to see if that's the kind of thing most tables actually want.
Given what we've seen, it looks like 6e does intend to make fests mandatory. Maybe the number of tables that font allow feats is smaller than WotC originally believed, or maybe they just changed their minds. In any case, a table that does not want feats can easily just remove that option and keep the original ASI progression.

If it were up to me, I'd remove ASI past 1st level altogether, and just stick with feats.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I
Given what we've seen, it looks like 6e does intend to make fests mandatory. Maybe the number of tables that font allow feats is smaller than WotC originally believed, or maybe they just changed their minds. In any case, a table that does not want feats can easily just remove that option and keep the original ASI progression.

If it were up to me, I'd remove ASI past 1st level altogether, and just stick with feats.
I'd remove both...
 



shadowoflameth

Adventurer
I'm still feeling like every background doesn't need a feat and I don't mind level prerequisites for them but in some cases, it will hurt backward compatibility of characters. If the point is to revise the PHB and have that compatibility then perhaps taking a feat as part of your background could trump a level 4 restriction.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top