D&D (2024) One D&D Playtest Expert Classes survey is up! Update! Now due Nov 23rd.

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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]

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.)

 

[MockingBird]

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.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

removed for reasons

 

[DEFCON 1]

removed for similar reasons

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

Dude! My whole point was to separate the two concepts so the issues you are describing don't come up...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Dude! My whole point was to separate the two concepts so the issues you are describing don't come up...

Okay, then nevermind. I guess I'm not getting it, so I'll just let it go. Doesn't matter anyway like you said.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Okay, then nevermind. I guess I'm not getting it, so I'll just let it go. Doesn't matter anyway like you said.

Well, poop. I wanted you to get it.