WotC Blogs II

[Jer]

I know people have busted the designers for not saying much in the past, but this post really takes the cake. Three paragraphs of nothing.

I don't think it's nothing - it read an awful lot like something from the Necronomicon.

Maybe if we play it backwards we'll get a secret message.

(Seriously - it reads like something that someone with "internal" knowledge might understand but I'm at a loss - "adjacent system"? "overlapping feats"? If I knew what those two terms meant I'd probably be able to decipher the paragraph. I think I might know what other people feel like when I start talking about networking protocols...)

 

[breschau]

I don't think it's nothing - it read an awful lot like something from the Necronomicon.

Maybe if we play it backwards we'll get a secret message.

(Seriously - it reads like something that someone with "internal" knowledge might understand but I'm at a loss - "adjacent system"? "overlapping feats"? If I knew what those two terms meant I'd probably be able to decipher the paragraph. I think I might know what other people feel like when I start talking about networking protocols...)

Adjacent system = talent trees.

Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Adjacent system = talent trees.

Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.

Or, a feat which overlaps with a talent.

[In Star Wars Saga, this might be the Soldier Indomitable Talent and the feat Extra Second Wind. Both do the same thing - +1 Second Wind per day - but the Talent can be taken multiple times.]

 

[DaveMage]

Well, that's...

Huh. I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Need more drugs to understand.....

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'll give my own interpretation, similar to what has been speculated.

We are busy beating feats into shape. Too many feats just don't fit. A feat should personalize your character, not simply procure a mini-power or minor rule exception. A feat may utilize the latter to do the former, but the latter alone? No. Boring. Annoying to remember and to execute.

Feats shouldn't be a collection of abilities, they should have flavor to them. A feat that gives 5 fire resistance is boring, but a feat that draws on your demon heritage to give you 5 fire resistance is interesting.

It was also taken for granted that an adjacent system would allow feats whose effects overlap without inconveniencing anyone. But the system isn't for this, and it's not good at it. I strongly resisted the overlapping feats until we realized we could use them - by creating a new method for accomplishing the same effect we had been abusing in the old system.

It was assumed that feats and talents that gave bonuses to each other would work just fine, but some problems arose as each one developed over time, and they don't mesh well in this aspect. He didn't like them at all until they found a way to make it work.

This is one of the dangers of working in a system, whether it's five years old or born from scratch: You get so used to how things work, or how you think they work, that you stop thinking about how they would work better. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.

Monkey Cage Experiment FTW!

 

[Remathilis]

If you type that into Google twice as fast as you possibly can, you either get a cool 4e piece of artwork, or a magic missile to the head. Its a pretty good deal, if you ask me.

Anyway, I took it to mean there are too many feats that stack unwittingly with they're new talent tree system. So feats got turned into cool abilities, new strengths, and otherwise focuses that make your character unique, not "must have" feats that everyone and their brother has (Natural Spell, Weapon Finesse). However, that is an awful way of phrasing that...

 

[Jer]

Adjacent system = talent trees.

Maybe - that's certainly the best explanation I can think of. But why use the word "adjacent" when it seems to more fit with the word "alternate"?

Overlapping feat = two feats that... well, overlap. Two feats that are either functionally equivalent, or that are basically the same.

But that's not really overlapping - that's "redundant". And what purpose would a system of redundant feats have such that you'd be debating whether its a good idea to implement it that way or not?

In Star Wars Saga, this might be the Soldier Indomitable Talent and the feat Extra Second Wind. Both do the same thing - +1 Second Wind per day - but the Talent can be taken multiple times.

But isn't that just "stacking"?

EDIT:

It was assumed that feats and talents that gave bonuses to each other would work just fine, but some problems arose as each one developed over time, and they don't mesh well in this aspect. He didn't like them at all until they found a way to make it work.

Ah - now that sounds closer to something I'd think of as "overlapping" - I might call it "synergy" instead of "overlap" but whatever - that interpretation makes sense to me. I wonder if you're right...

 

[JVisgaitis]

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

This is a wild shot in the dark, but this is what I think he means. I think we'll see more stuff like the Spelltouched Feats in Unearthed Arcana i.e. Feats that define something about your character making him unique as opposed to just giving a bonus.

I think Feats that allow you to take something that's just a perk ability like Martial Weapon Proficiency giving you aptitude with a longsword won't be available anymore. Seems like they have some new system of handling rules changes like that. Probably done through Talent trees.

Who knows? It could be anything, but I'm sticking with this as I think it sounds cool.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But isn't that just "stacking"?

No, it's more like "The purpose of this talent overlaps with the purpose of this feat. They have the same end result, in gameplay terms, but are arrived at via different rules subsections. Is this necessarily something we want?"

 

[Andor]

Maybe - that's certainly the best explanation I can think of. But why use the word "adjacent" when it seems to more fit with the word "alternate"?

Because alternate implies that it's one or the other but characters will use both. Probably something like a feat at each even level and a talent at each odd one. So they are adjacent systems, although I would have said 'parallel'.

But that's not really overlapping - that's "redundant". And what purpose would a system of redundant feats have such that you'd be debating whether its a good idea to implement it that way or not?

Possibly it's overlaping in terms of design goals. It's been implied for example that classes will have race specific talent trees, so elven archers may get access to unique abilities in the fighter talent trees for example to showcase thier pointy-eared coolness.

However if you also have a set of Elven Archer feats, then you have two systems that are trying to reach the same goal, and are stepping on each others toes.