Rule Of Three - How did I miss this

[Jhaelen]

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?

Well, the most common difference is that feats are supposed to be boolean in nature, i.e. either you're proficient in armor or you're not. Skills have a point value and are used in checks.

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?

Maybe, but it's going to get tricky for several of them. Turning every feat into a skill would be counterprodictive since it would lead to an open-ended skill inflation.

I've just read the Burning Wheel rpg and they have something they call 'trained skills'. In contrast to regular skills you cannot advance them, i.e. they're effectively the equivalent of D&D's feats.

As already mentioned I'd much rather see feats be folded into classes as (optional) class features. But I guess you could also fold them into skills or attributes by having characters automatically gain their benefits when the skill/attribute reaches a certain score.

It probably would lead to characters getting more complex over time, though, which is another thing I don't like.

 

[LurkAway]

Well, the most common difference is that feats are supposed to be boolean in nature, i.e. either you're proficient in armor or you're not. Skills have a point value and are used in checks.

Mechanically, I see the distinction that feats are boolean. (Some of that distinction breaks down a bit when you have Lesser and Greater versions of the same feat though).

In terms of the fiction that some feats are supposed to model, it may seem arbitrarily boolean to me.

For example, and I mean to keep this edition neutral, if one PC has something like an Acrobatics feat and gets +2 to jump, etc. Another PC has no such feat but pumped in more skill points and nets the higher Jump bonus, etc. Thus the 2nd PC, lacking the feat, is still the better acrobat. I need the mechanics to model who is the better acrobat, and the feat in doesn't help in this case. Also, fictionally, what does it all mean, to invest in the Acrobatics feat vs investing in the individual skills? That the 1st PC has an official career in acrobatics, but the 2nd PC is better anyway, and if so, why do I need a feat/skill differentiation to tell me that?

I'd rather have a lesser acrobatics theme/build that suggests to put x points in certain skills to be a circus acrobat, and a hero acrobatics theme/build that suggests to put an additional x points in those skills to be a ninja, and finally a super acrobatics theme/build to become spiderman.

As already mentioned I'd much rather see feats be folded into classes as (optional) class features.

My only concern is that the feats would be codified/hardwired to an extreme such that it's arbitrarily conflated with the class (as per Roles in Roleplaying thread).

How about picking a class, which defines your training (martial, arcane, etc.). Then pick a combat build that is a semi-flexible approach to combat role. Then pick one or more themes that offer a semi-flexible approach to choosing skills.

But I guess you could also fold them into skills or attributes by having characters automatically gain their benefits when the skill/attribute reaches a certain score.

It probably would lead to characters getting more complex over time, though, which is another thing I don't like.

Agreed. I hope that for 5E, where there is a will, there's a way.

 

[Windjammer]

From the OP:

This is an amazing answer. Let's look at it

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.

Gave rise to this proposal in another thread:

The reason Rich Baker's article about powers inspired this idea for me is that I could see a book that offered a new power structure, one that could be used in place of the existing one. Powers would be consolidated, clarified, and re-compiled. Perhaps PCs can choose from lists specific to their Power sources. Classes can be re-envisioned as combining primary, secondary, and tertiary power sources, with varying degrees of access of the different power lists (e.g. only a class with Martial as primary could gain access to the more powerful and/or daily Martial powers...or something like that).

Basically, the idea is to revert to a 1E-3E style of Player's Handbook where we have one consolidated list of spells/powers 'to rule them all'. I hope people have not forgotten how much time it took to roll up an 8th level Favoured Soul from Complete Divine, and how 4E's PHB 1 changed all that for the better.

The only way I can see WotC reverting back to that is to incentivize use of online chargen tools so strongly that players are expected to use these tools. I say that as someone who's not once subscribed to DDI, and has run several 4E characters without running into problems. This was a huge issue with 4E release ('game will not require that you subscribe to our online services') I wonder if 5E changes this.

 

[MerricB]

From the OP:

Gave rise to this proposal in another thread:


Basically, the idea is to revert to a 1E-3E style of Player's Handbook where we have one consolidated list of spells/powers 'to rule them all'. I hope people have not forgotten how much time it took to roll up an 8th level Favoured Soul from Complete Divine, and how 4E's PHB 1 changed all that for the better.

AD&D did not have a consolidated list of spells/powers. Each spell-casting class had its own list. Some powers referred you to other lists, but with tweaks - so the Magic-User and Cleric versions often would vary in range, duration and suchlike.

AD&D 2E consolidated the cleric and druid spells into one list, and the wizard and illusionist spells into one list. This wasn't actually a good change, IMO, as it stripped out much of what made the druid and illusionist special. However, a spell like Detect Magic now had two versions (cleric & wizard) with different attributes for each.

Cheers!