D&D General Vote Up A 5e-alike, Part 5: Feats (and a question of levels)

[Faolyn]

Lanefan suggested feats before classes, which is probably as good a way to go as any.

I'm not one of those people who have studied feats in-depth. I've taken feats. I'm waiting to level up so I can take on for my current character. But I'm not an expert, which means there will be likely be several options I haven't thought up. Please put them in the comments!

I'm also going to bring up one more question that should probably be addressed before classes: How high a level will this game go to? (A)D&D goes to 20th level. 4e went to 30th level. Most OSRs only go up to 10th level. Basic D&D went up to 36th level.

 

[CreamCloud0]

@Faolyn i think you've done the thing again where you neglected the third option, there's no 'both half and full feats'

 

[Faolyn]

@Faolyn i think you've done the thing again where you neglected the third option, there's no 'both half and full feats'

Added it! Thanks for the reminder.

(I'm terrible at remembering third options.)

 

[Tonguez]

I want all class abilities to be made feats thus allowing classes to be customisable via easy swapping out of feats.

then build at lv 1 and new feat every 3

 

[Lanefan]

No feats. Bake some of what are now feats right into those classes where they make sense, and lose the rest. Reduces complexity, protects niches, and cuts back on jack-of-all-trades characters.

No hard level cap, leave it open-ended. How this would look in design: you give the progression up to a certain level (could be 10th, 15th, 20th, whatever) to the point where the progressions have become linear, but nothing stops there. Instead, it's all left open-ended as "[big-number] of xp per level after [design cap]", "gain [x-number] of hit points per level after [design cap]", it would be shown how the combat and save matrices would logically continue beyond the design-cap level, and so forth.

That way, the books could deal with the design-range levels but the game wouldn't have to end once that level range had been reached or exceeded in play; the parameters would be in place for it to keep going - and keep advancing - for as long as the DM and players wanted.

Also, having it open-ended and yet consistent makes it way easier for a DM to design opponents that exceed the range of level design. In 5e as written, for example, how can a DM usefully design a 33rd-level Fighter to throw against a high-level group of curb-stompers?

Also, embrace the idea of a few "dead levels" rather than shun them completely. Why? Because if every class has to gain some tangible power or ability at every level other than more h.p. and maybe better attacks and saves, the power level of the whole game gets completely out of hand by double-digit levels.

 

[Scribe]

Feats every 4.
Feats at 1.
Feats by PreReq.
Level 20.
Half and Full.

 

[Corinnguard]

Feats every 2, Feats at 1, Class-specific ala PF2 (but without the bloat), Level 20.

 

[CreamCloud0]

feat schedule by class
+1st level feat
feat type restrictions
only half-feats
level 15 cap

i'd also say there's probably some of the current 5e feats that ought to be baked into the basic systems.

 

[Amrûnril]

I think more explanation of the premises behind these questions would be helpful. For instance, is number of levels meant as a measure of power growth or as a measure of granularity and customization? My personal preference would be for less of the former but more of the latter.

 

[Faolyn]

I think more explanation of the premises behind these questions would be helpful. For instance, is number of levels meant as a measure of power growth or as a measure of granularity and customization? My personal preference would be for less of the former but more of the latter.

I agree, but I honestly don't know if I could answer. I'm with you in that I would prefer levels to be more about customization than power--and we're getting close to that, however, since people want hit points to be reduced and spells to be capped at level 5. So nobody is going to be too powerful in this game, even if it goes to level 20 or beyond.

No hard level cap, leave it open-ended. How this would look in design: you give the progression up to a certain level (could be 10th, 15th, 20th, whatever) to the point where the progressions have become linear, but nothing stops there. Instead, it's all left open-ended as "[big-number] of xp per level after [design cap]", "gain [x-number] of hit points per level after [design cap]", it would be shown how the combat and save matrices would logically continue beyond the design-cap level, and so forth.

In Pathfinder 2e, it takes 1,000 XP to go up a level. Once you get that number, you reset it to zero. You just, presumably, get fewer XP by killing weaker monsters (I haven't really read about how XP works beyond this). While I believe PF still assumes a 20-level cap, this model could still be used for an open-ended system. Especially if, as @Tonguez suggested, class features are replaced by feats. Every level, your hp goes up by whatever amount (it could class dice up until 10th level, then just a couple of points after that). Every X levels, you get a class feat. Every Y levels, you get a background/ancestry feat.