Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6115218" data-attributes="member: 7006">I've been thinking about the different character creation mechanics that have been offered to us thus far in all the Next playtest packets... and have found that perhaps the idea of Specialties and the use of feats for ALL classes in the game perhaps is no longer the right direction to go.  The reason being... is that their existence (a set of combat abilities bundled together in a combat style package) is basically duplicating what WotC has been trying to put together for the Fighter.  A "Fighting Style" which is something equivalent to the Schemes, Domains, and Traditions of the other three Core classes.So what has resulted is an overlapping and duplication of stuff for the Fighter.  A Specialty, that gives the Fighter a few combat abilities in a fluffy package... AND a Fighting Style or series of Maneuvers, which also give the Fighter a few combat abilities in a fluffy package.  As a result... up until this past packet, you could be a Fighter with the Marksman fighting style, and the Sharpshooter specialty.  Two packages trying to accomplish the exact same thing.The reason this has occurred is because of WotC's continued work to make Feats a mechanic that ALL classes can use.  However, I do have to wonder if perhaps this is no longer the way things should go?  Should classes like Wizards or Clerics really need to fiddle around with Feats?  Do they really need to use combat goodies that they couldn't already get via Spells?  The Wizard I think we can easily say "absolutely"... as they onl Specialty and Feats in the current packet that are really geared for them are the Metamagic feats (which could easily get repackaged as some other chargen mechanic if they were to remain in the game).  For Clerics?  I guess I would ask why they would need special combat abilities over and above their spells?  Aren't spells enough?  And if not... (especially for the martial-minded Clerics of the Justice or War domains) then I might ask could they not be served by having spells that grant them increased combat ability, so that they wouldn't need to have feats on top of it?Because here's what I see-- most of the Specialties already are mimicking the idea of Fighting Styles-- the Defender, Skirmisher, Reaper, Polearm Master, Ambusher, Swashbuckler, Sharpshooter etc.  You basically are seeing the Fighter's equivalent to the Rogue's Scheme, the Cleric's Deity, and the Wizard's Tradition right there.  Should not perhaps we go back to the idea that Feats (or Maneuvers or Exploits or whatever you want to call them) ARE the province of Fighters only?  They are what the Fighter does that is individual and separate from the other classes?  And anything else that are currently Feats but don't actually affect weapon combat-- like Purge Magic, or Herbalism, or Find Familiar, or Open Locks, or any of the Expert Feats that adjust the Skill die-- just put them somewhere else.  Make them individual optional parts of the various classes that would use them, rather than under this giant umbrella called "Feats".  That way we can finally stop having to have the fighter "double-dip" in Martial Feats *and* fighting maneuvers, and there can be just one pool of fightery stuff they can pull from.***Now that being said... I know people are going to ask about classes outside the Core Four and whether they should use Feats too.  And to me... the answer is "Yes", to a point.  To me... Feats should be to weapon-primary classes what Spells are to spell-primary classes and Expert abilities are to the skill-die primary classes-- the pool of "special stuff" they can do.In my opinion... I would LOVE it if the acquisition of Feats (in terms of when you get them and the way they power up) ran alongside the acquisition of new Spell slots and the acquisition of new Expertise.  New spell levels currently appear at 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, etc... and I think new Feats and new Expertise would follow the same pattern.  That way... you could had a definite relative equivalency between a 1st level Feat, a 1st level Spell and 1st Level Expertise (with a balance between the more powerful but used less often er day Spells versus the "always-on" but not as bursty Feats and Expertises).The advantages of this is that it allows for easier to comprehend multiclassing.  A Fighter 5 / Wizard 5 would have the Feats and Spells applicable to that equal distribution.  Or a Rogue 7 / Cleric 3 would have the Expertises of a 7th level rogue plus the Spells of a 3rd level cleric.Also... you then could start giving the OTHER classes openings into these three bundles.  So for instance... Druids are a spell-primary class, so their spell acquisition mimics the clerics and the wizards.  Right now in the current packet... Rangers and Paladins have been given spells at 1st level (in a caster-secondary distribution).  But if Feats became ONLY the province of the Fighter to start with... and there was a definite equivalency between Feats and Spells... then you could allow the Paladin and Ranger to CHOOSE which secondary pool of abilities they wanted to follow-- Spells or Feats (and thus get your "non-casting" paladin and ranger back).  Or for the Ranger or Monk or Bard?  Opt-in to the Expertise-secondary pool of abilities, for those PCs who are less martially-inclined and more skill-focused like the Rogue.***All in all... I really think these three mechanics-- the combat Feat, the Spell, and the expert Expertise-- should get sectioned off to the individual Core Four class that it's meant for.  And any special abilities meant for those classes get turned into packets of mechanics FOR those classes, rather than turn them all into this giant morass of "stuff" that has become the current 3E/4E/DDN "Feat system".  Because it has once again been shown to us that trying to cram too many disparate things into the umbrella title of "Feat"... just makes things way too unwiedly-- plus robs the Fighter of the one truly unique and individual mechanic that they probably should have.</blockquote>

Verification