The criticism that odd ability scores are useless is absolutely valid. A solution would have been to make them useful. Like basing extra languages on odd Int and extra AC on odd Dex.
D&D 5E What I Learned From Creating 30 D&D Next Characters
- Thread starter koga305
- Start date
The criticism that odd ability scores are useless is absolutely valid. A solution would have been to make them useful. Like basing extra languages on odd Int and extra AC on odd Dex.
Fanaelialae
Legend
It's a + 1 to a Stat and 4 proficiencies. More complex, sure. But not complex.
If + 1 to two stats is a 1 on the (1 to 10) complexity scale, I'd put the proficiency feats at a 2 or 3.
Li Shenron
Legend
What kind of scale? If the currently most complex feat is 10 on the complexity scale, most feats which currently grant proficiency in weapons could be a 9 or 10, since they all add abilities you have to keep memory of. Other proficiency feats such as Loremaster or Alert are less complex because they mostly grant "write (on character sheet) and forget" benefits, but still have 3 different benefits, and sometimes you even have to choose them. This is lesser complexity, but still complexity.
Anyway, my main main point is:
- people who hate feats probably do so for various possible reasons. Maybe the most common are a) fiddly bits i.e. small benefits that aren't significant enough, b) more things to keep track of (i.e. added complexity)
- having the option of learning new things during the campaign is quite natural for the game, and yet currently there is no easy way to gain new proficiencies. If you want a new proficiency, you have to take it through a feat or (yikes!) multiclassing. That means A LOT of extra baggage, when all you want is just 1 more skill or 1 more weapon!
- that means people who hate feats, if they ever wish to get 1 more proficiency after level 1, they will have to take a feat, which now has even more fiddly bits and things to track of than in previous editions...
I'm just saying that if feats were same "size" as in previous editions, this would not be a problem. A player could at some point choose a feat OR a +1 to an ability score OR a new proficiency. The player who hates feats would not need to take any unwanted fiddly bit or whatever, but could still get just that extra proficiency she's looking for.
I'm sorry, the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. I'm not done with them yet; it may be a few weeks.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
According to Mike Mearls, you can get new proficiencies through the downtime rules. Of course, that was like a year ago, so we don't know if that's even still a thing.
Li Shenron
Legend
That could be a way to fix the problem, although it would mean a disparity between a character in a game using the downtime system and another in a game that doesn't use it.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
You could say the same thing about a high-magic campaign and a low-magic campaign. I think it's inevitable with some of the "DM optional" parts of D&D Next.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Downtime proficiencies only creates a meaningful disparity (and threatens the class-based design in general) if you can get certain types of proficiencies. Weapons, armor, skills, and saves to be exact. Those are part of character balance.
On the other hand, if you can learn only tools* and languages, it works out all right. That's the version that I support.
Because, why the heck wouldn't you take the time to learn all the best skills (perception, stealth, etc) if it were possible? Saves? You betcha!
On the other hand, carpenter's tools and orcish might come into play, but its not worth it for the average character to spend down time on unless one of those is known to be important for an upcoming campaign event. The whole party might take a while to learn orcish if they planning on going into orc lands, for example. No problem.
*With the single exception of thieves' tools, which is currently too much of an adventuring resource to be like the other tool proficiencies.
On the other hand, if you can learn only tools* and languages, it works out all right. That's the version that I support.
Because, why the heck wouldn't you take the time to learn all the best skills (perception, stealth, etc) if it were possible? Saves? You betcha!
On the other hand, carpenter's tools and orcish might come into play, but its not worth it for the average character to spend down time on unless one of those is known to be important for an upcoming campaign event. The whole party might take a while to learn orcish if they planning on going into orc lands, for example. No problem.
*With the single exception of thieves' tools, which is currently too much of an adventuring resource to be like the other tool proficiencies.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
I can only assume it costs XP or money, or something like you can only learn one thing per character level. Obviously, if you can learn whatever you want, you can just start the first session like "OK, we spend 3 years becoming trained in all skills, then we start adventuring."
Similar Threads
