Rule Of Three - How did I miss this

[Hussar]

Really, this is the same issue that feats have.

With what, 1700+ feats for 3e, name three iconic ones. And that's after ten years of play. Power attack would come to my mind, but, that's about it.

But, really, how fast does something become iconic? It's only been three years. We're not going to get "iconic" stuff for a while in my mind.

And, lastly, the reason a lot of things become iconic is because they were just so much better than everything else, that that's what everyone chose. Sleep is an iconic spell, not because it's so flavourful, but because every bloody Lvl 1 magic user who could always took it. Followed by magic missile. Why isn't Unseen Servant iconic? Because it's not something a lot of people used.

Why isn't the polearm fighter iconic? Because swords were just so much better for most of the history of the game.

Why isn't the crossbowman iconic? Because bows are ten times better than crossbows.

I'd say that things not being iconic means that they actually did their job well.

 

[delericho]

The problem is that there are only so many effects possible in the design space. Some damage, possibly plus some side-effect, possibly with some negative consequence, possibly with an effect on a miss. There are only so many ways that these can be done. And when you have dozens of classes, each with dozens of powers (at least), you're very quickly going to get some overlap.

I think the solution is to prune the list of classes somewhat, to introduce some powers that are common by power source (so maybe the Paladin and the Cleric share some of their healing effects), and to adjust the relationship between classes and sources so that classes draw most of their powers from one source, but can draw from other sources where it is appropriate (so the Barbarian gets his rage powers from the Primal source, but he also has access to some Martial powers, which are probably the same as some of the Fighter's powers).

Organising all that in print is likely to be a hassle - you'll probably want to continue presenting the powers with the individual classes (for ease of use), which will mean reprinting information. The alternative is to have lots of references, but I think 4e probably has the right of it as-is. Of course, when organising it online, it really doesn't matter - the Character Builder can just bring in the appropriate powers invisibly.

 

[Jhaelen]

It was one of the things I found quite surprising when 4e was released: Zero overlap in powers between classes. That definitely caused some head scratching. Why develop a new power from scratch if it would fit another class just as well?

Really, this is the same issue that feats have.

With what, 1700+ feats for 3e, name three iconic ones. And that's after ten years of play. Power attack would come to my mind, but, that's about it.

Feats are a lot worse than powers.

When leveling a character, I have to pick one of, say, a dozen powers. that's fine.

But when I have to pick a new feat I'm buried in hundreds of choices! I'm currently strongly in favour of getting completely rid of them (for a new edition of the game). Turn the few interesting ones into class options and don't ever think about the rest of them again.

 

[Greylock]

1. There are too many powers that are too similar
2. Powers were originally broken up by class for making it easier to roll new characters
3. WotC clung to this design (class = power selection) instead of breaking away from it
4. It can be hard to tell what powers belong to what class (the example provided is weak, some classes do have iconic powers that fit them. Fighter's Come and Get It for example.)
5. Baker believes that the overabundance of powers has made the game less recognizable.
6. Baker is in favor of fewer, but more iconic powers that are not limited by class. Heck, he says the game would be Better if this was the case (obviously just his opinion, but still, what a statement).

I think this is a good idea! What could we call these? How about, just tossing this out there, Feats!

I like the ring of that. How about you all?

 

[Insight]

It was one of the things I found quite surprising when 4e was released: Zero overlap in powers between classes. That definitely caused some head scratching. Why develop a new power from scratch if it would fit another class just as well?

Feats are a lot worse than powers.

When leveling a character, I have to pick one of, say, a dozen powers. that's fine.

But when I have to pick a new feat I'm buried in hundreds of choices! I'm currently strongly in favour of getting completely rid of them (for a new edition of the game). Turn the few interesting ones into class options and don't ever think about the rest of them again.

What about changing the scope of what feats can do? I like the idea of feats only being able to modify things your character already does, and no "math-fixing" feats. So, let's say you're playing a Human Paladin. You would only have access to feats that affect "Human" racials (admittedly, not much), Paladin class abilities and powers, and general weapon and armor feats. No bloodlines, no guild feats, no tribal feats, no dragonmark feats, etc.

And no multiclassing. That needs to be handled through another mechanic.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
But when I have to pick a new feat I'm buried in hundreds of choices! I'm currently strongly in favour of getting completely rid of them (for a new edition of the game). Turn the few interesting ones into class options and don't ever think about the rest of them again.

I cannot support getting rid of feats; and I hope that nobody at Wizards is contemplating getting rid of feats.

However, I do agree that some of the existing feats could be converted to being class options instead, in an upcoming new edition.

I also agree it would be great if the standard, built-in dual-classing options could be provided using some other mechanic than feats, because characters frequently need their feats for other things. (The folks at Wizards should by now have a considerable amount of information telling them whether anybody ever takes an initial multiclass feat, and then all three further multiclassing power-swap feats, in order to qualify for Paragon Multiclassing. If few people ever do that, that means that it's a bad design that needs to be replaced in 5E.)

 

[Otterscrubber]

I counter "Wall of Books" syndrome by going to the Character Optimization boards. They've done the research for me!

Cheers!

While this is handy, I don't like the fact that I pretty much have to do internet research to make a solid character. This I do not agree with. I used to really enjoy making a character with books only. Sure maybe you had to use more than one book, 2 or so. But now you need to have like 5 books to reference (at about $30 a pop no less). I don't think it should be this way.

Going online to get some perspective is nice, but I don't think you should HAVE to go to internet forums or use a program to be reasonably sure you have a well made character. I don't mind having 2 books on my lap or with me at the coffee shop, but if can't fit the books in need into my motorcycle luggage then it is too cumbersome in my opinion. I think online tools should be tools, not necessities.

 

[Otterscrubber]

I also do not support getting rid of feats. I thought they were brilliant when they came out and i still think they are the best vehicle for customizing your character. I think the problem came out when there are hyper specific feats that fall into an almost useless category or as the game evolves and they introduce new feats that are similar to, but superior to prior feats. Or feats that are specific to this campaign or that tribal faction. At a certain point I start pulling my hair out feeling I have missed something or if I have the latest version of this feat.

I think Essentials did a good job of making feats more generalized. There were still some choices to be made, which is a good sign I think, but they didn't leave me feeling like I was horribly weak in anything. They should have some guidelines on whether or not a feat is required. If the only person who will choose the feat is a fire mage from this specific campaign setting who belongs to this very specific clan of halfling arcane lineage, don't make the feat.

 

[Mark CMG]

I cannot support getting rid of feats; and I hope that nobody at Wizards is contemplating getting rid of feats.

However, I do agree that some of the existing feats could be converted to being class options instead, in an upcoming new edition.

Which ones? How many official feats are now available?

 

[LurkAway]

Just musing... why are feats and skills distinct? In 3E/PF, what's the difference between choosing the Acrobatics Feat vs just putting more points into jump, etc.? Why is Armor proficiency a feat and not a skill?

Could skills and feats (and maybe even powers) be consolidated? So instead of trying (and often failing) to make all feats equal and all skills equal, just pool them all together and find another balancing structure?

Because when you have so many layers of class, build, powers, feats, skills and themes, it does seem a bit of bewildering.