Gradine
🏳️⚧️ (she/her) 🇵🇸
Here's what I suspect will happen. The community will likely eventually rally around a 3.x-esque "tier" system for classes and subclasses, but the difference in tiers will likely be much less dramatic (and we'll doubtful see much of anything belonging below tier 3). There will probably be a few corner case subclasses that will get trashed for being less optimal than other subclass options, but it'll be less "Beastmasters suck" and more "why wouldn't you be a Hunter instead?" I'm sure in many circles the former will happen, but I suspect the truth will be closer to the latter.
As for feats, what we're seeing are feats that give players choices, and they could make choices that are less impactful than others (Resilient being a good example, Skilled another). Then you will have choices (again, mostly skills and feats) that have less impact on combat or dungeon delving and will therefore be disparaged by players whose game styles focus primarily on those two things. Character defining but nevertheless not-as-combat-impactful feats like Actor and Tavern Brawler have already been raked over the coals. Also see Hand Crossbow and other mathematically "pointless" weapons. But even these choices aren't really "traps" in the 3.x sense (where feats or class choices were underwhelming and obsolete). Still, regardless of what they're called, these are the choices charopers will tell people to avoid.
But these choices have their purpose, and a pretty good purpose at that. I find myself once again recommending the article on The Aesthetics of Play. It's a fairly well regarded theory on game design, labelling eight "aesthetics" that describe different ways people have fun with games (we might call them play styles). Let me quote sections on the relevant aesthetics.
Challenge
"Challenge seekers see the game as a series of obstacles to overcome and foes to be defeated. They want to test themselves and win. If they fail, they want to know the failure was fair and next time they will do better. Just keep in mind that challenge seekers aren’t solely about winning combat. They like overcoming obstacles, they like accomplishing goals, and they like to win. Investigations, puzzles, negotiations, chases, hunts, and obstacles are all valid challenges. It is popular to scoff at challenge seekers. These are the people trying to win. Power gamers. Munchkins. Optimizers. They don’t want to role-play, they want to roll-play. And that is a stupid, s$&%y, harmful view. Remember, most people combine multiple aesthetics and this is just one possible reason to play. It is no less valid than any other. If you snort with derision at the challenge seeker, you might be cutting out a lot more gamers than you realize." - See more at: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/#sthash.SkTzAtxN.dpuf
Expression
"The thing is, you can say that your character is a blacksmith or a tailor or whatever in any edition. You don’t need rules or skills to back you up, right? So who cares. It is not as if anyone actually used those skills. So what was the harm. Well, the thing that expression seekers understand is that anyone can say anything, but when you choose to expend resources on something, that makes a much stronger statement. That says “this is important, this is central.” When you give up a useful skill like Diplomacy or Athletics in favor of a skill you might never use like Tailoring, that sacrifice says something about what you think is important about your character. It is a strong expression. And people who value the ability to make those strong statements were upset that that ability had been reduced."
In that last sentence the author is taking about the 4e edition wars, and the reduced skill list. Throughout the article it is discussed how different editions and different games offer better access to some Aesthetics over others, and that even in the same game, different groups will emphasize different aesthetics. As someone who identifies highly as an Expression-seeker, I appreciate when those sorts of options are available (see also Sleight of Hand, or Animal Handling). As professional game designers I expect the 5e team to have at the very least a passing knowledge of the Aesthetics of Play, and I also expect (from what they've said) that they've created a game which should appeal to players seeking any of the eight aesthetics.
So I expect "traps" to exist, such as they are, and I expect players to overwhelmingly have fun regardless of which "traps" they fall into.
As for feats, what we're seeing are feats that give players choices, and they could make choices that are less impactful than others (Resilient being a good example, Skilled another). Then you will have choices (again, mostly skills and feats) that have less impact on combat or dungeon delving and will therefore be disparaged by players whose game styles focus primarily on those two things. Character defining but nevertheless not-as-combat-impactful feats like Actor and Tavern Brawler have already been raked over the coals. Also see Hand Crossbow and other mathematically "pointless" weapons. But even these choices aren't really "traps" in the 3.x sense (where feats or class choices were underwhelming and obsolete). Still, regardless of what they're called, these are the choices charopers will tell people to avoid.
But these choices have their purpose, and a pretty good purpose at that. I find myself once again recommending the article on The Aesthetics of Play. It's a fairly well regarded theory on game design, labelling eight "aesthetics" that describe different ways people have fun with games (we might call them play styles). Let me quote sections on the relevant aesthetics.
Challenge
"Challenge seekers see the game as a series of obstacles to overcome and foes to be defeated. They want to test themselves and win. If they fail, they want to know the failure was fair and next time they will do better. Just keep in mind that challenge seekers aren’t solely about winning combat. They like overcoming obstacles, they like accomplishing goals, and they like to win. Investigations, puzzles, negotiations, chases, hunts, and obstacles are all valid challenges. It is popular to scoff at challenge seekers. These are the people trying to win. Power gamers. Munchkins. Optimizers. They don’t want to role-play, they want to roll-play. And that is a stupid, s$&%y, harmful view. Remember, most people combine multiple aesthetics and this is just one possible reason to play. It is no less valid than any other. If you snort with derision at the challenge seeker, you might be cutting out a lot more gamers than you realize." - See more at: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/#sthash.SkTzAtxN.dpuf
Expression
"The thing is, you can say that your character is a blacksmith or a tailor or whatever in any edition. You don’t need rules or skills to back you up, right? So who cares. It is not as if anyone actually used those skills. So what was the harm. Well, the thing that expression seekers understand is that anyone can say anything, but when you choose to expend resources on something, that makes a much stronger statement. That says “this is important, this is central.” When you give up a useful skill like Diplomacy or Athletics in favor of a skill you might never use like Tailoring, that sacrifice says something about what you think is important about your character. It is a strong expression. And people who value the ability to make those strong statements were upset that that ability had been reduced."
In that last sentence the author is taking about the 4e edition wars, and the reduced skill list. Throughout the article it is discussed how different editions and different games offer better access to some Aesthetics over others, and that even in the same game, different groups will emphasize different aesthetics. As someone who identifies highly as an Expression-seeker, I appreciate when those sorts of options are available (see also Sleight of Hand, or Animal Handling). As professional game designers I expect the 5e team to have at the very least a passing knowledge of the Aesthetics of Play, and I also expect (from what they've said) that they've created a game which should appeal to players seeking any of the eight aesthetics.
So I expect "traps" to exist, such as they are, and I expect players to overwhelmingly have fun regardless of which "traps" they fall into.
