Rule Of Three - How did I miss this

[Insight]

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.

I suppose one possibility would be to consolidate feats, skills, powers, and class features into one big pool. Call it "Features". Some of it is customizable, some of it you get by default from your class or race.

So, to create your character, you choose a class, race, your ability scores, and a series of features, then your equipment.

You would have certain categories of features, such as

Feature [Race]
Feature [Class]
Feature [Skill]
Feature [Combat]
Feature [Social]
Feature [Background]

... or something along those lines.

Let's say you want to make a Gnome Mage (Illusion School). You would automatically get

FADE AWAY
Feature [Race]

ILLUSION APPRENTICE
Feature [Class]

SPELLBOOK
Feature [Class]

ARCANA
Feature [Skill]

SIMPLE WEAPONS
Feature [Combat]

WIZARD IMPLEMENTS
Feature [Combat]

CLOTH ARMOR
Feature [Combat]

and then choose a number of other Features - you may want to limit how many skill, combat, (or whatever sort of Features that exist) you can take. Prerequisites could also limit what Features you could take.

Examples of Features that could spring off the ones you get by default:

DIPLOMACY
Feature [Skill]

DUNGEONEERING
Feature [Skill]

HISTORY
Feature [Skill]

INSIGHT
Feature [Skill]

MASTER TRICKSTER
Feature [Race]

NATURE
Feature [Skill]

REACTIVE STEALTH
Feature [Race]

RELIGION
Feature [Skill]

TRICKSTER'S CUNNING
Feature [Race]

... and a number of the existing Gnome and Wizard feats as options

The difference between this system and the current system would be more flexibility. Instead of being forced to take 4 skills or all of a race's abilities, you would receive what is considered "CORE" for your race and class and everything else would be optional.

 

[Umbran]

While this is handy, I don't like the fact that I pretty much have to do internet research to make a solid character.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you feel that you need to do that research.

"Solid character" is relative to the particular table. In a table where everyone else is going to Char Ops, and the game is heavily into combat, then yes, you'll be rather out of step with the others, and that can be a hassle. But otherwise, there's no real need for that. You are not in competition with the rest of the universe - only with what the GM tosses at you.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And to piggyback what Umbran said... you in no way need to use five books to create a useful character either. A Player's Handbook and the applicable Power splatbook is all you really need for most games... unless you are stuck playing at that 'heavy combat / Char Ops' table that Umbran referenced.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, I agree in theory with the basic premise.

Dispel magic could just as easy be wizard/artaficer/warlock level 6 and bard/cleric 10

(((Or something like this)))

Sure strike could be BOTH Ranger and Fighter level 1 atwill...maybe add it to a few other classes (although I would make it better)

HOWEVER I still want class powers too.

I think that if every new class could get a half dozen old powers right off the bat it could do better...Imagin 3-4 str cleric powers, and 2-3 str paliden powers and maybe 1 or 2 warden powers got added to ruin priest... or take 1 or 2 warlord, 3-5 ranger powers, and maybe a shaman or monk power got added to seeker.
those could do wonders...

I don't want to see 30 martial powers, 30 arcane powers, 30 divine powers, and 20 defender powers, 20 striker powers, 20 leader powers, and 20 controler powers, then 10 fighter, 10 warlord, 10 ranger, 10 rouge, 10 wizard, 10 warlock, 10 paliden, 10 cleric... and then theme utilities, and 1-3 race powers.

I want some diversity and some common ground.

I could even see eldritch blast and magic missle getting merged...

 

[LurkAway]

I suppose one possibility would be to consolidate feats, skills, powers, and class features into one big pool. Call it "Features". Some of it is customizable, some of it you get by default from your class or race.<SNIP>The difference between this system and the current system would be more flexibility. Instead of being forced to take 4 skills or all of a race's abilities, you would receive what is considered "CORE" for your race and class and everything else would be optional.

Sure, and I do like flexibility, OTOH, if this combines 4 or 5 big lists (feats, skills, powers, class features, themes) into one ginormous list it will make my eyes gloss over. I'd be interested in these "features" if they consolidated all the skills and feats and maybe powers, removed redundancy, arbitrariness, and left me with something more streamlined.

For example, I'm not sure I see a point in have a dozen feats, each providing a +2 bonus to a different skill. The mechanical adjustment (+2 to some skill) is the same for all, so why not consolidate them all to a general +2 to skill Feat and then use themes to fluff it appropriately? But even better, why have a general +2 skill Feat all? Why not just add an extra 2 points directly to the skill you want? (it wasn't clear to me if your Features examle was doing this or not)

Now I know that accounting for mix-maxers will always be a thorn in the side of more flexible features list. For example, without structure, they'll dump all their points into the most combat powerful features and become a super-specialized skill-deficient low-Cha uber-fighter.

So here's a new AFAIK idea. I read in the preview of the feywild book that there's a kind of choose-your-own-adventure to create your character background.

Would it work to do the same for character generation? You work your way through choose-your-own-adventure talent/skill trees, and the end result, which is the equivalent of class build and theme, tells you what features to pick. Then maybe you have a small fudge factor to move points around here and there.

The talent tree progession would be designed to account for game balance and fictional consistency. So if you get into the wizard path, it would be impossible to add the entire warrior path too. But you could start on the divine path and find your way on the warrior path and get a paladin for example.

For newbies, I think it sure would make character generation FUN instead of intimidating.

It would be theoretically possible to build a character without following the choose-your-own-adventure, and just go through the ginormous list of features, but because it may lead to unbalanced and fictionally unfeasible mix-maxed PCs, these would not be 'official' builds and are subject to DM approval. But in advanced games where the group is OK with that kind of freedom, then they can knock themselves out and choose features how they like.

I know it's easier to criticize and offer vague suggestions than a detailed working model that pleases mostly everyone. The feat bloat is overwhelming though and full of redundancy for me, and it goes back to the OP that I suspect it has a lot to do with the organization and presentation.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

You could argue that it's simply harder for new things to gain traction? How many spells from the Spell Compendium are iconic?

At my table?

The entire "orb of" line
Revivify
Cometfall (my doing, how many times must you drop a 400lb ball of ice on a fire giant army before they realize they're messing with the wrong crew?)

Rainbow beam
Rainbow blast (i played a prismatic caster once, amazingly random)

there are many others, but they are table by table you know?

We all know fireball, lightening bolt, magic missile, but at the same time, they are the 'big flashy' spells

I agree that less powers may be better, in a homebrew I had put together, the fighter had more 'named' options (power attack, defensive stance, aimed shot, two-weapon fighting) at first level while the wizard had the same thing with different effects (Magic missile could be tailored to do specific types of energy and at higher levels mimic fireball and lightening bolt, I figured this would be interesting, seeing as this was how it was done in chainmail way back when, oddly it worked great, I had a player do a necroblaster [necromancer/blaster combo] who had a negative energy bolt, it did less damage than a fire bolt would, but he could heal his undead minions with it)

Wow that was a long one.

Anyways I think 'skill challenges' actually took away from the game in all honesty, although I am fond of having the player give me a diplomacy check when ever they say something to an npc...since it is less what you say and more how you say it...although the few and limited skills of 4e made me rage a bit (one of the reasons I passed) due to the fact 'perception' is a case-by-case check, like I had a character blinded in a fight with a displacer beast, but he could still make his listen checks, things obviously ruled on by a decent DM, but given the option...well we all know those DMs...

Well enough babble from me, time to see who tears me apart this time.

Oh, and those spells were from 3e, I saw someone mention the 1700+ feats in 3e, and this was due to the epic level handbook's 'unending level' concept...why not have a 5100th level character who has every feet, every level of every class and every spell? this is of course a joke.

 

[Quickleaf]

When I first read that column by Baker what sprang to mind were talent trees organized by 'X class only' and 'multiclass.' So fighter would get access to the Weapon Specialization tree, and barbarian would get access to the Rage tree, but either could take talents from the Great Weapon tree.

You could combine feats, powers, some of the less iconic class features, even rituals/martial practices into talents. For example each talent tree would have three paths: active powers, passive bonuses, and "toolbox" talents. Each path would have talents that build on each other. For example, to take the Cleave talent on the Great Weapon tree, you'd first need to take Power Attack.

One of the great similarities of powers has to do with scaling, where a higher level power is practically a lower level power with stronger effects. A talent tree model would address that redundancy while organizin similar abilities under a convenient and intuitive heading.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

My thoughts were also much like Quickleaf's, altho flavored by recent other threads.

What I would like 5e to do is to follow Ken Hood's Skills-n-Feats system that I used in 3x. Basically you have a talent tree with the opening feat granting access to a skill or skills, for example 'psionics' or 'martial arts' or 'dedication'. Other feats have prerequisites of a certain skill level and/or other feats. Usually these feats will grant 'cross-class' access, meaning a higher cost to increase.

Certain classes could grant the feat and/or access to the skill as a 'class', making them inherently better than other classes.

In this manner, you could have your fighter variants built from the base 'fighter' class and take optional talent trees for spell-blade, paladin, barbarian, etc.

Balance could be maintained through skill points, with more powerful talents costing more. As the game expands, you merely add talent trees and the class that is best at that particular talent. Players can then dip into various classes to develop their chosen character concept.

Players could also stay as simple or get as complex as they want. The 'base' fighter would have two or three talent trees, while a bard might have 5 or 6.

If combat was based on the 'attack' and 'defense' skills, than much of this naturally falls into place with a common resolution mechanic of using skill checks {whether that be D20 vs DC or dice pool vs DC or what ever skill system you want to use}

I also think that races should be split between genetic mechanics and social mechanics, so being full blooded elf consists of the 'elf blood' and 'elf training' packages. This allows for half-breeds to mix and match their blood and their training in a variety of ways.. as well as having multiple version of a race {elf anyone?} without too much fuss.

 

[Votan]

At my table?

The entire "orb of" line
Revivify
Cometfall (my doing, how many times must you drop a 400lb ball of ice on a fire giant army before they realize they're messing with the wrong crew?)

Rainbow beam
Rainbow blast (i played a prismatic caster once, amazingly random)

there are many others, but they are table by table you know?

We all know fireball, lightening bolt, magic missile, but at the same time, they are the 'big flashy' spells

In some ways this is a reaction to the weakening of Frieball, Lightning Bolt and Metor strike. After all, how different is Cometfall (conceptually) from metor strike? How often would Orb of XXX come into play if Fireball was not so weak?

And weak it is. It is affected by saves (1/2 damage), spell resistance, and can be completely negated by evasion. Replacing all of those weaknesses with a ranged touch attack is a bargain for a high level caster.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

In some ways this is a reaction to the weakening of Frieball, Lightning Bolt and Metor strike. After all, how different is Cometfall (conceptually) from metor strike? How often would Orb of XXX come into play if Fireball was not so weak?

And weak it is. It is affected by saves (1/2 damage), spell resistance, and can be completely negated by evasion. Replacing all of those weaknesses with a ranged touch attack is a bargain for a high level caster.

But by only targeting a single creature, it turns into a sniper spell, I found that when players start using touch attack spells that do tons of damage, mirror image can mess things up, obscuring mist can mess things up, meanwhile fireball has none of these.

It is a ration of damage to those harmed by the spell that finds the balance.

The real issue I have with so many spells is playing a character who dispells and counterspells...to many spells to be used against him kind thing.