Themes and Feats

[Crazy Jerome]

Yup. I'd much rather see, on average, themes include one feat from each of the three pillars... rather than themes made up of three feats all from the same pillar.

You do that, then each theme helps all aspects of a character in all aspects of the game. The only thing you then watch out for is in the 'build-your-own-theme' rules... and if you are able to pick up all feats from a single pillar that that doesn't overpower said character in that pillar while simultaneously gimp him in the other two. Hopefully feats wouldn't be so powerful that that would occur.

Really like that idea. It puts in the structure for silos without making them required, because it also supports obvious tweaks. You want to preserve balance between pillars? Then no swapping feats in a theme across a pillar. You don't care? Let people swap freely.

Generally, I'm in favor of balancing mechanics that balance by default, but tell you how you can readily unbalance, if you are so inclined. That idea does a good job on both counts.

 

[gweinel]

Many of you mention the three pillars which was one of the main pillars of advertising the 5e.

Have you noticed that this feature have been toned down the last weeks or is my imagination?
Should I speculate that is a concept that they (designers) see that is difficult to realise?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think I'm well into the minority, but I really don't want forced equality across all three pillars. While I'm okay with a Fighter contributing to social situations (even via Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive [a good one for him], not just Intimidate), I really want my Bard to shine all around comparatively. On the flip side, I'd prefer my Fighter outshine my Bard in combat.

I know that a lot of people want something like a 3/3/3 when it comes to Combat/Exploration/Interaction, but I'm okay with 3/3/3, 5/1/1, 1/3/4, and the like, too. Sure, maybe make all themes balanced across the Pillars, and sure, make classes start off balanced on them, too. But, give me a way to change them (by swapping feats, etc.), and I'll be happy. As always, play what you like

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think I'd like at least some feats to add to multiple pillars at once.

For example-

Power attack You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry: get -2 to attack and +5 damage, +1 to intimidate when brandishing a weapon, and an additional +5 to damage versus objects.

Two weapon fighting Ambidextrous : you can wield a weapon in each hand with lessened penalties, you get no negative to disguising yourself as someone with a different handedness, and you get +1 to acrobatics and athletics checks that involve two hands (eg, swinging on a chandelier).

The above are merely an examples of what I'd like to at least see, and not intended to be judged on their own rule merrits. If feats flesh out the ways in which our characters interact with the world, then feats should impact the other pillars in ways that make sense.

Thaumaturge.

 

[ren1999]

Feats, Utilities, Rituals, Spells, Prayers, Trigger Actions, Recharge Actions, Martial Exploits, Skills, Special Qualities, Resistance, Damage Reduction, etc... should all be combined and divided into four main categories plus 1 category that represents what characters learned before they became professional adventurers.

Martial Skills (focusing on honorable weapon fighting)
Rogue Skills (focusing on questionably ethical skills)
Arcane Spells
Cleric Prayers (Healing & Control)

Knowledge Skills, Trades or powers not specific to any of these four basic classes should be available to all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know that a lot of people want something like a 3/3/3 when it comes to Combat/Exploration/Interaction, but I'm okay with 3/3/3, 5/1/1, 1/3/4, and the like, too. Sure, maybe make all themes balanced across the Pillars, and sure, make classes start off balanced on them, too. But, give me a way to change them (by swapping feats, etc.), and I'll be happy. As always, play what you like

I'm okay with it too... provided you arrive at a 5/2/2 via the combination of Class, Background and Theme. If you take a combat Class, and add in a combat Background and a combat Theme... then sure, being all-combat and not much exploration/interaction because that's the way you built your PC is fine. But at least you have some competence in exploration and interaction.

The issue really comes up when some players say they want some Classes built all-or-nothing, that a Class should be designed purposely to suck at one or more pillars... rather than starting all classes at a base minimum of competence.

So for instance that there should be a class that has NO combat skill whatsoever... I'm guessing barely reaching a somewhat usable level of competence with the application of a combat theme? But even then... if you're purposely selecting a class designed with no combat skill, what are the odds you'd then select a theme that was meant for combat? Very slim, I imagine. But what you've done with this game design is eliminated a potential Class from a whole host of players who might otherwise play it, except for the fact that it is completely useless in one to two thirds of the game.

In my opinion, 10/1/1 is not good design. It's too wide a disparity between best and worst pillar and will result in really bad balance. 8/2/2 is pushing it... 6/3/3 (or 3/6/3 or 3/3/6) to me is the best. There is a still a marked difference between the high and low pillars... but all three pillars are still somewhat useful.

 

[JamesonCourage]

...what you've done with this game design is eliminated a potential Class from a whole host of players who might otherwise play it, except for the fact that it is completely useless in one to two thirds of the game.

In my opinion, 10/1/1 is not good design. It's too wide a disparity between best and worst pillar and will result in really bad balance. 8/2/2 is pushing it... 6/3/3 (or 3/6/3 or 3/3/6) to me is the best. There is a still a marked difference between the high and low pillars... but all three pillars are still somewhat useful.

Like I said, starting with a balance is fine. However, I do not want to be forced into competency in all three areas, much less forced into near-perfect balance. I (and my players) like incompetency in certain areas as a part of our character concepts. For us, D&D was never solely about "adventurers" doing adventurous things. The system was a tool for our favored type of RPing, and this includes non-combat sages, socialites, and the like. We play my RPG because it caters to those tastes far more than D&D did (or, at least in ways that we liked more than any edition of D&D did).

I want to be able to build a character with a "1" in combat. I might want someone who has a "1" in exploration, too (or social/interaction). Most characters won't be completely incompetent in these areas, mind you, but sometimes one of us has a concept where such a thing is the case.

Make it an optional rule, or a rules module, or a "clear-it-with-your-GM" thing, or whatever, but give me a system that doesn't force every character to be competent in every area. Make it the baseline? Sure. Assume it to be the case? I guess so. Balance around it? Sure, you need to start somewhere (put in a disclaimer: "if you change from these assumptions, here is the likely results in balance"). But, if we're seeing my preference come to fruition, then at least give me the option to trade competency, with all the imbalance that it entails.

If my concept means I suck at combat, then I'm okay with dying in combat. If it's disruptive ("it'll get us killed! We need someone who can contribute in this combat-heavy campaign"), then give advice on only allowing it if appropriate; it's not really any different from a PC who is competent but won't fight the bad guys, or a thief who steals from the party, or an evil cleric who kills PCs that drop, or whatever. As always, play what you like

 

[dkyle]

Make it an optional rule, or a rules module, or a "clear-it-with-your-GM" thing, or whatever, but give me a system that doesn't force every character to be competent in every area. Make it the baseline? Sure. Assume it to be the case? I guess so. Balance around it? Sure, you need to start somewhere (put in a disclaimer: "if you change from these assumptions, here is the likely results in balance"). But, if we're seeing my preference come to fruition, then at least give me the option to trade competency, with all the imbalance that it entails.

The Feats/Skills/Traits system would make that kind of dial really easy to adjust. The DM can just change how many of each characters get, or permit trading between them. It's a lot easier for a DM to combine Feats, Skills and Traits into a single pool of options, than for a DM to split them out.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, if we're seeing my preference come to fruition, then at least give me the option to trade competency, with all the imbalance that it entails.

And I think that's really all that matters. A game where a player can purposefully choose to nerf himself down to a level of incompetence if that's what he/she wants to do, as opposed to a facet of the game already nerfed so that there's no place to go.

And when I say keep the basic design within 6/3/3 as opposed to 10/1/1... I mean that from a "normal" (non-mix-maxed) player point of view. A new player cracking open the book and just following the basic design of Race/Class/Background/Theme to create a "combat" character should probably not result in anything further than 6/3/3. However... the min-maxer should be able to take the tools at his disposal and get down to 6/1/1 if they so chose (through careful selection of choices that do absolutely nothing if not outright harm the other pillars for the character.)

We can have faith that a min-maxer (with emphasis on the min) can drop his PC down to a really poor point. We just need to make sure that that kind of incompetence doesn't just happen accidentally to someone who isn't trying to accomplish it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The Feats/Skills/Traits system would make that kind of dial really easy to adjust.

I hope this is the case

And I think that's really all that matters. A game where a player can purposefully choose to nerf himself down to a level of incompetence if that's what he/she wants to do, as opposed to a facet of the game already nerfed so that there's no place to go.

And when I say keep the basic design within 6/3/3 as opposed to 10/1/1... I mean that from a "normal" (non-mix-maxed) player point of view. A new player cracking open the book and just following the basic design of Race/Class/Background/Theme to create a "combat" character should probably not result in anything further than 6/3/3. However... the min-maxer should be able to take the tools at his disposal and get down to 6/1/1 if they so chose (through careful selection of choices that do absolutely nothing if not outright harm the other pillars for the character.)

We can have faith that a min-maxer (with emphasis on the min) can drop his PC down to a really poor point. We just need to make sure that that kind of incompetence doesn't just happen accidentally to someone who isn't trying to accomplish it.

Well, I'm also an advocate of a person who is able to push themselves above a "6" in the scale that you describe. So, I'd like the min-maxer to be able to achieve a 8/1/1, if they want. Maybe not 10/1/1, but some return on the hurt they've given themselves.

Again, I'm all for making it clear exactly what this does to balance. Mutants & Masterminds has a little entry next to time travel saying "hey, this superpower can mess things up. Be careful allowing it." This is not bad design, necessarily. It's certainly not forced design.

The good part is it's optional. This isn't "your class can do this, but it's stupidly powerful. But, be careful when you use it; it's stupidly powerful, and can mess things up!" That is, you're not given the ability, then warned about using it. It's completely optional. M&M makes it "you can take this, but be careful with it, as it may make the game worse." That's good advice. If certain things say "you can do this to make your character hyper-specialized, but be careful, it'll make you great in your area while making you contribute little or nothing outside of it, which can upset the game's assumed balance" I'm okay with that.

I want the option to be incompetent in areas, but I want some return on it, even if it's not 1 for 1. If it's a scale of 3/3/3, maybe every time I raise an area over 3 I lose 1 point in the other two areas. So, I can have a 5, but I'm at 5/1/1. I can have a 4, but that puts me at 4/2/2 or 4/3/1, my choice. Obviously 3/3/3 is the most rewarded (it has the highest total), and 5/1/1 is the most punished (it has the lowest total), but I have the option on how to control my concept.

I want to be able to be trade things, and I'm a much bigger fan of advice on "hey, this mess things up" than I am of "no, you must be proficient in these areas, and no, you cannot shine more than other people in these things, even if you hyper-specialize." But, I think that advice is a lot more necessary, whether we're talking about playing well with the party (alignments, gods, mercenary vs morality, etc.), not bringing in-game conflict into real life, etc. Again, though, I'm okay with balance being the baseline, and this all being optional or in a module. And, again, these are just my preferences. As always, play what you like