The Featless Game

[Fwiffo86]

So, my group plays without feats. And from what I have seen, the characters seem to be sharing awesome shiny time in equal measure. I was curious if anyone else is playing without feats, and what their experience has been thus far?

I am not interested in defending our decision to play without them. So questions as to why we chose this will be unanswered.

[heavyfuel]

First time I played, we did it with no optional rules, feats included. I've since played with 2 other DMs and am currently DMing, all three times with feats.

Overall, removing feats from the game removes so many character options that it's not really fun IMO. It also makes casters outclass mundanes even more since there aren't that many feats made for casters specifically, but there are plenty that are good for anyone or that are tailored for mundanes. So everyone gets a bit more power and mundanes get a bit more power, therefore the gap is reduced.

[Garimeth]

When we playtested 5e we did not use feats.

It is not so bad at low level, where even in a feat game there are few feats, but at levels 10-15 (never went past that) it got pretty noticable how Fuel mentioned.

I would not personally DM a game w/o feats, but I can take or leave multiclassing.

[archaeo]

I am not interested in defending our decision to play without them. So questions as to why we chose this will be unanswered.

I wouldn't mind hearing, however, why you did decide to play without them. It isn't a "defense" thing; I'm just honestly curious as to why it was the option your table went for.

[TrollCapAmerica]

I played without feats before. We called it AD&D. Feats were o be of the things that begrudgingly made me finally switch to 3rd edition back then and I haven't regretted it

[Fwiffo86]

I wouldn't mind hearing, however, why you did decide to play without them. It isn't a "defense" thing; I'm just honestly curious as to why it was the option your table went for.

We played alot during the playtest. What we found was that the feats were unreliable in balance. So we started playing without them to see how much of an imbalance they presented.

Our experience is that the feats made character options pointless, invalidated levels in some classes, and essentially broke the full party cohesiveness. To try and put it more simply, feats took emphasis from class A, and gave it to feat holder B. This threw the spotlight on what we felt as the wrong character at the wrong times.

The champion fighter argument in the other thread is a perfect example of what we experienced. Feats pull away from what is essentially a really good class, and make people trivialize it. Why would you want to play a champion fighter when you can do comparable damage with any other class simply by spending a feat?

Edit for additional stuff....

Why have a fighter class (someone who specializes in fighting above all others) when feats enable someone like a Bard (traditionally supposed to be a backup in everything) be more effective in combat doing what the fighter does? If you take the feats away, this doesn't happen. The fighter stays the fighter, the wizard never becomes abusive because he isn't allowed to cover his most important weaknesses (armor and concentration) with a feat, etc. Feats in my and my table's experience completely skew the game.

[Myzz]

What do the fighters do with ASI's if yall dont play with feats?

A fighter will have a 20 Str fairly quickly and a 20 con not long after, even if you started with standard array, depending on race of course.

[Fwiffo86]

What do the fighters do with ASI's if yall dont play with feats?

A fighter will have a 20 Str fairly quickly and a 20 con not long after, even if you started with standard array, depending on race of course.

He spends them on his other abilities. You would be amazed at how much a difference it makes when suddenly your fighter has all abilities at at least +1.

[kaoskonfety]

We played alot during the playtest. What we found was that the feats were unreliable in balance. So we started playing without them to see how much of an imbalance they presented.

Our experience is that the feats made character options pointless, invalidated levels in some classes, and essentially broke the full party cohesiveness. To try and put it more simply, feats took emphasis from class A, and gave it to feat holder B. This threw the spotlight on what we felt as the wrong character at the wrong times.

The champion fighter argument in the other thread is a perfect example of what we experienced. Feats pull away from what is essentially a really good class, and make people trivialize it. Why would you want to play a champion fighter when you can do comparable damage with any other class simply by spending a feat?

Edit for additional stuff....

Why have a fighter class (someone who specializes in fighting above all others) when feats enable someone like a Bard (traditionally supposed to be a backup in everything) be more effective in combat doing what the fighter does? If you take the feats away, this doesn't happen. The fighter stays the fighter, the wizard never becomes abusive because he isn't allowed to cover his most important weaknesses (armor and concentration) with a feat, etc. Feats in my and my table's experience completely skew the game.

I can see myself running featless for just this reason. You are heroes that grow and learn in iconic class selections, not STR 20 CON 20 Sentinel/Pole arm master man, who happens to be a whatever class. Haven't done it yet and was thinking of starting up a similar thread to inquire on the impact - Thanks Fwiffo86!

I may also try out/offer a "soft option" of cutting out all the feats that don't grant a stat boost...

I think that leaves the armor feats, the save feats, resilient, observant? Probably a few more? None of which outshine any class features or redefine combat (too much). Probably leave the +3 skills one too... cause SKILLZ to pay da BILLZ.

[Fwiffo86]

I can see myself running featless for just this reason. You are heroes that grow and learn in iconic class selections, not STR 20 CON 20 Sentinel/Pole arm master man, who happens to be a whatever class. Haven't done it yet and was thinking of starting up a similar thread to inquire on the impact - Thanks Fwiffo86!

I may also try out/offer a "soft option" of cutting out all the feats that don't grant a stat boost...

I think that leaves the armor feats, the save feats, resilient, observant? Probably a few more? None of which outshine any class features or redefine combat (too much). Probably leave the +3 skills one too... cause SKILLZ to pay da BILLZ.

If you do so, I would love to hear about how it goes.

[Chronos]

Another issue: Without the feats rule, and the variant humans that (can) come with it, the game is actively punishing you for choosing to play a human. Just why are we the most numerous race, again, exactly?

[heavyfuel]

Just why are we the most numerous race, again, exactly?

Because the majority of the population isn't cut out to be a great adventurer. You know, ike the Human.

[kaoskonfety]

Another issue: Without the feats rule, and the variant humans that (can) come with it, the game is actively punishing you for choosing to play a human. Just why are we the most numerous race, again, exactly?

I'm unclear how "being a bit better at everything that a given race doesn't focus on" is punishment? Without feats you end up 2-3-ish stat points ahead of everyone else. Meaning your +2's go further into getting you 14+ across the board, start with 13's/14's in everything and cherry pick you classes to your hearts content. Or focus on your class abilities but still have your low stats be 10?

[Fwiffo86]

I'm unclear how "being a bit better at everything that a given race doesn't focus on" is punishment? Without feats you end up 2-3-ish stat points ahead of everyone else. Meaning your +2's go further into getting you 14+ across the board, start with 13's/14's in everything and cherry pick you classes to your hearts content. Or focus on your class abilities but still have your low stats be 10?

Its like which would you rather be? Good at one thing? Or second best at everything?

Sure, hes stronger than me, but I'm stronger than the rest of you.
Sure, hes faster than me, but I'm faster than the rest of you.

That's why humans win.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, my group plays without feats. And from what I have seen, the characters seem to be sharing awesome shiny time in equal measure. I was curious if anyone else is playing without feats, and what their experience has been thus far?

I am not interested in defending our decision to play without them. So questions as to why we chose this will be unanswered.

We play with, but I don't think it would make much of a difference to play without. I do think there are some fun action options that are available via the feats, but those could almost certainly just be emulated via improvising an action/contest/whatever as long as the DM was game.

[Chronos]

Quoth kaoskonfeti:

I'm unclear how "being a bit better at everything that a given race doesn't focus on" is punishment?
That's not punishment. The punishment is "being worse than others no matter what you do try to focus on". Half of the classes in this game have three scores that do absolutely nothing for them, and the other half have two scores that do absolutely nothing. So that right there means that a human has a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use. They also have +3 or +2 to ability scores they won't use, but if you're not using those scores, why would you care? All other races also have a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use, so right there, if all of those three or four scores were exactly equally valuable, humans would only be on par with the other races. Except that they're not: There's always some score that you like more than the others, so getting +2 instead of +1 in that score is better than getting +1 instead of +0 in some other score. So even just looking at ability scores, humans are worse. And that's literally all that the standard human gets, while other races are picking up darkvision, free cantrips, useful tool and weapon proficiencies, skill proficiencies, advantage on some saves, resistance to some elements, and so forth.

[JNAProductions]

I always thought humans ruled through dint of breeding power. Let's face it, people like to go through the baby-making process, and I don't see anything in the PHB for preventing pregnancies. More than that, to my knowledge in the era D&D is kinda set in has more kids being a good thing for the societies most humans live in.

Elves and dwarves just plain have less kids.
Halflings might have as many, but they lack the conquerer's drive that humans as a whole have.
Humans, meanwhile, breed like humanoid rabbits and have the drive to expand expand expand. We aren't the best, the fastest, the brightest, the toughest, the ____est. But we happen to have 50 humans for every one of another race, we want your land, and we're willing to sacrifice the 15 that will die to get it.

However, I don't think we should be seeing this reflected in human stats. That would just get very odd, very fast.

[jkat718]

However, I don't think we should be seeing this reflected in human stats. That would just get very odd, very fast.

For the elves, you get magic and stealth! For the dwarves, you get hardiness and combat training! For the humans, you get...AGGRESSIVE BABY-MAKING!

[pwykersotz]

That's not punishment. The punishment is "being worse than others no matter what you do try to focus on". Half of the classes in this game have three scores that do absolutely nothing for them, and the other half have two scores that do absolutely nothing. So that right there means that a human has a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use. They also have +3 or +2 to ability scores they won't use, but if you're not using those scores, why would you care? All other races also have a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use, so right there, if all of those three or four scores were exactly equally valuable, humans would only be on par with the other races. Except that they're not: There's always some score that you like more than the others, so getting +2 instead of +1 in that score is better than getting +1 instead of +0 in some other score. So even just looking at ability scores, humans are worse. And that's literally all that the standard human gets, while other races are picking up darkvision, free cantrips, useful tool and weapon proficiencies, skill proficiencies, advantage on some saves, resistance to some elements, and so forth.

Basing something such as the complexity and magnitude of influence over the world on game stats for player characters is a dangerous game. It's very likely to turn out silly.

[kaoskonfety]

That's not punishment. The punishment is "being worse than others no matter what you do try to focus on". Half of the classes in this game have three scores that do absolutely nothing for them, and the other half have two scores that do absolutely nothing. So that right there means that a human has a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use. They also have +3 or +2 to ability scores they won't use, but if you're not using those scores, why would you care? All other races also have a total of either +3 or +4 to ability scores that they'll use, so right there, if all of those three or four scores were exactly equally valuable, humans would only be on par with the other races. Except that they're not: There's always some score that you like more than the others, so getting +2 instead of +1 in that score is better than getting +1 instead of +0 in some other score. So even just looking at ability scores, humans are worse. And that's literally all that the standard human gets, while other races are picking up darkvision, free cantrips, useful tool and weapon proficiencies, skill proficiencies, advantage on some saves, resistance to some elements, and so forth.

While I'll yield the bulk of the experience with the game (making and leveling characters, killing high level foes) would lead one to see that adventurers are common and people with class levels are building the society, I can even see settings where thats the case (Forgotten Realms feels the worst for 'its another group of high NPC's running around and in charge') so PC optimization must apply to everyone yes?. '

Generally the feel I get is the adventurers the PC's play are a cut above in terms of ability, class levels are not the default, and most people are just shmoes trying to make a living in a psudo-medieval setting. If the typical Human has, on average, an extra +1.5 somewhere on their ability checks/saves/whatever in general, this looks like an edge - the elf is say, faster and just as smart, but the human is wiser, tougher, stronger and more charming - and not THAT far behind on dex. The elf makes a better thief or wizard, assuming they have a class level. The human makes a more versatile person, just as good a wizard, a thief a half step or 2 behind and a better everything else. Even if he is a thief he has more hit points, a better wisdom and strength score for when those come up, and a minor edge in social skills

Going to the "unused stats"...A relative +1 wisdom save looks like garbage on a someone whose power doesn't spring from their wisdom stat, but the smaller numbers 5th passes out actually make you feel it. To put it broad strokes, the high elf falls for 5% more con games - or in more relevance to the dominant people angle: the nation of high elves falls for 5% more con games. Slightly less suspicious, slightly less resistant to disease etc.

The race features are good, darn good in some cases, but I don't think whether they are worth +3 average stats is as cut and dried as its made out to be.

At a glance - most cantrips have the advantage of not needing ammunition over a crossbow - and far less range than a crossbow, advantage on poison saves is cute - but wars generally are not won with poison nor does it get the crops planted or your home built. The various night visions are quite good, probably the best overall persistent ability, but all I see using these edges against them doing to humans is forcing them to burn down alot of forest during the day time and watch it smolder and crackle at night, repeat in the morning. Bonus: new farmland.

Am I saying the elves couldn't wipe out humans given equal numbers? Um, no. I'm pointing out it wouldn't be a ROFL stomp and its a bit more complicated than "they get cantrips and long bow proficiency so they win"

As for the rest of the races, they are listed as uncommon - glancing thought the only 2 that concern me for "humanity" are the part demons and the part dragons, no big surprise? The demons burn your cities and kill you from the smoking ruins and the dragonkin are a bunch of armored sentient flame throwers. I assume few setting have these occurring enough and unoppressed enough to reasonably supplant mankind? Am I wrong, did 4th make these ubiquitous and its cannon now? So they have supplanted mankind?

You are looking to optimize a player characters damage output and your survival. Maxing out your primaries is how everyone has been trained to do this - but saving against all wisdom checks 5% more often, seeing though that lie - its marginal, and 5th has succeed at making the margins matter a little bit more. And once you've got your 20 Strength and Con... now what? Your Wisdom 8 starts to look dismal. It looks like removing the feats pushes more of it to a stats game in the higher levels. And humans are the only ones not playing catch up.

Thoughts?

[JNAProductions]

The average, 200 year old elf is probably gonna have a couple of extra levels on a the average 30 year old human. even if they aren't class, just vague NPCish levels, they'll still be there.

So yes, I do think that 500 elves will, on average, be able to kick 500 human butts. However, given the same ages, it'll probably be 50/50 who wins, and again, there won't be 500 elves, 500 humans. It'll be 500 elves, 5000 humans.

[TrollCapAmerica]

The average, 200 year old elf is probably gonna have a couple of extra levels on a the average 30 year old human. even if they aren't class, just vague NPCish levels, they'll still be there.

So yes, I do think that 500 elves will, on average, be able to kick 500 human butts. However, given the same ages, it'll probably be 50/50 who wins, and again, there won't be 500 elves, 500 humans. It'll be 500 elves, 5000 humans.

This was sorta the reason Humans got the bonus feat/skills in 3rd ed. They were so mechanically weak compared to everything else in the universe you had to wonder why they were a big deal and the mechanics were the complete opposite of their fluff.Humans were largely worthless and everyone with any sense of optimization played multi-classed demi-humans for numerous good reasons

Giving them the bonus feat/skills was perfect as giving Dwarves more Constitution or Orcs more Strength.Taking that away just because they didnt wanna scare new players with awesome feat choices makes them as crappy as they were in AD&D with yet another "Advantage" that in reality is pretty crap

I still see variant humans as the default because im not trying to regain market share after 4Es failure and dont need to tone my game down to avoid scaring small children

[Naanomi]

Human Fighter ends up with what... 20/16/20/14/14/14?

[Chronos]

Why is he pumping Str, Int, and Cha, instead of putting those points into Dex and Wis where they can do some good?

[Naanomi]

Why is he pumping Str, Int, and Cha, instead of putting those points into Dex and Wis where they can do some good?
General all-around saves without sacrificing too much? Or if you'd prefer... 20/20/20/10/14/10?
Or a DEX based fighter at 12/20/20/10/20/12?

[JNAProductions]

And then there's that one guy in 1.015599567e14 guys who rolls 6 18's straight down and has literally nowhere to put points at level 19. Totally gonna happen.

[kaoskonfety]

And then there's that one guy in 1.015599567e14 guys who rolls 6 18's straight down and has literally nowhere to put points at level 19. Totally gonna happen.

He can have a feat - one divine rank. Congrats, you win.

[MeeposFire]

This was sorta the reason Humans got the bonus feat/skills in 3rd ed. They were so mechanically weak compared to everything else in the universe you had to wonder why they were a big deal and the mechanics were the complete opposite of their fluff.Humans were largely worthless and everyone with any sense of optimization played multi-classed demi-humans for numerous good reasons

Giving them the bonus feat/skills was perfect as giving Dwarves more Constitution or Orcs more Strength.Taking that away just because they didnt wanna scare new players with awesome feat choices makes them as crappy as they were in AD&D with yet another "Advantage" that in reality is pretty crap

I still see variant humans as the default because im not trying to regain market share after 4Es failure and dont need to tone my game down to avoid scaring small children

Actually humans were very popular in AD&D and optimization did not really care too much about race considering that the difference between human and non-human was very minor especially at higher levels. The biggest advantage was infravision which is nice but not the be all end all. Of course this is separate from the demi human level limits and the multiclassing/dual classing divide. Those were far more important than any actual racial abilities (I hate demi human limits personaly).

So optimization wise the important part about race was what class you want to play due to class restrictions.

[jkat718]

And then there's that one guy in 1.015599567e14 guys who rolls 6 18's straight down and has literally nowhere to put points at level 19. Totally gonna happen.
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B4ebNko__G-NSV9JR3JLS2doZ00
P1: "But I rolled for my stats! You can't make me change them!"
DM: "Did anyone actually see you roll those stats?"
P1: "..."
DM: "Exactly. Now reroll, with a -5 to each stat."

[TrollCapAmerica]

Actually humans were very popular in AD&D and optimization did not really care too much about race considering that the difference between human and non-human was very minor especially at higher levels. The biggest advantage was infravision which is nice but not the be all end all. Of course this is separate from the demi human level limits and the multiclassing/dual classing divide. Those were far more important than any actual racial abilities (I hate demi human limits personaly).

So optimization wise the important part about race was what class you want to play due to class restrictions.

I dont wanna come off as too mean here but thats not remotely true..Humans got nothing for most of AD&D besides "unlimited advancement" in an era when getting to 9th level could realistically be retirement time and access to dubious at best mid tier classes like Druid and Bard [Shared with a few races] and the Paladin and laughably bad Monk.

A multi-class Dwarf F/C or Elf F/M ran rings around everyone else and were lax on the level limits enough that getting to moderately high levels wasent unreasonable.

Even without Multiclassing your choice of "No notable abilities" vs "Something at all" isnt that hard to see

[MeeposFire]

I dont wanna come off as too mean here but thats not remotely true..Humans got nothing for most of AD&D besides "unlimited advancement" in an era when getting to 9th level could realistically be retirement time and access to dubious at best mid tier classes like Druid and Bard [Shared with a few races] and the Paladin and laughably bad Monk.

A multi-class Dwarf F/C or Elf F/M ran rings around everyone else and were lax on the level limits enough that getting to moderately high levels wasent unreasonable.

Even without Multiclassing your choice of "No notable abilities" vs "Something at all" isnt that hard to see

And yet I think you are way over exaggerating what the race actually gives you. Nothing that a race gives you is that important in AD&D.

You already made my claim. Class is where the power is so depending on what you want to play determines your class due to certain classes being made unavailable to certain races.

For example the difference between an elf fighter/mage and a half elf fighter/mage is so minor that it really does not matter.

If you are able and want to play a dual class then human is your choice. If you want to play a multiclass then whatever race allows you to play what you want is a good choice. If you want to play a fighter then it really does not matter much. Even without level limits the racial divide is so small that making a big deal of it is just not worth it.

You could say that an elf might be more OP than a human for a fighter but the difference is so minor that most of time it is not worth mentioning.

Now you can make a claim about a specific situation such as picking an elf when the con penalty does not hurt you but the dex bonus could help. Also you can make a general comment that with the thief class a demihuman is better to a significant degree in the time you need it most-the early game. I will freely give that one but it is not exactly that big of a deal as a general statement.

[Logical DM]

General all-around saves without sacrificing too much? Or if you'd prefer... 20/20/20/10/14/10?
Or a DEX based fighter at 12/20/20/10/20/12?

It's not int saves really do anything. Which is something of a problem - let the wizard pick up the int skills and no other class except for EK/AT needs int at all. My first game of 5e I rolled a 3, put it in int, it literally never came up. I had the same intelligence as a dog and it had absolutely no mechanical impact whatsoever - if you had 3 strength people would notice because you could barely move, if you had 3 wisdom people would know without having to see your character sheet because you'd be really easily tricked and would never notice anything, I had 3 int and never really mentioned it to anyone and nobody at all noticed because intelligence does nothing in 5e.

[MeeposFire]

It's not int saves really do anything. Which is something of a problem - let the wizard pick up the int skills and no other class except for EK/AT needs int at all. My first game of 5e I rolled a 3, put it in int, it literally never came up. I had the same intelligence as a dog and it had absolutely no mechanical impact whatsoever - if you had 3 strength people would notice because you could barely move, if you had 3 wisdom people would know without having to see your character sheet because you'd be really easily tricked and would never notice anything, I had 3 int and never really mentioned it to anyone and nobody at all noticed because intelligence does nothing in 5e.

I would have to say that if you were in my game and I was even a player I would be pretty miffed if you played a 3 int character and did not play as if having 3 int. Having int that low should cause lots of problems in the game. If it was not noticed then you were not trying enough.

[Logical DM]

I would have to say that if you were in my game and I was even a player I would be pretty miffed if you played a 3 int character and did not play as if having 3 int. Having int that low should cause lots of problems in the game. If it was not noticed then you were not trying enough.

No, it shouldn't. That's kind of my point - if I have a weakness, I shouldn't have to 'try hard' to make that weakness hurt me. If the other stats are bad I don't have to try to deliberately screw myself over with my weaknesses, they do it for me. If I have a character with 3 constitution then he'll get sick all the time and go down to a single swing, if I have a character with 3 wisdom he's going get mind controlled more than Belkar does and not notice an elephant sneaking up on him. If I have a character with 3 intelligence then he'll... be bad at a few skills I was never going to take in the first place, because no-one wants intelligence so you just have the wizard take them? And be weak to like the one intelligence save in the game?

Intelligence is an absolute dump stat in 5e, at least charisma has a bunch of saves and you will need to interact with people, but putting 3 in intelligence had absolutely no downside.

[TrollCapAmerica]

And yet I think you are way over exaggerating what the race actually gives you. Nothing that a race gives you is that important in AD&D.

You already made my claim. Class is where the power is so depending on what you want to play determines your class due to certain classes being made unavailable to certain races.

For example the difference between an elf fighter/mage and a half elf fighter/mage is so minor that it really does not matter.

If you are able and want to play a dual class then human is your choice. If you want to play a multiclass then whatever race allows you to play what you want is a good choice. If you want to play a fighter then it really does not matter much. Even without level limits the racial divide is so small that making a big deal of it is just not worth it.

You could say that an elf might be more OP than a human for a fighter but the difference is so minor that most of time it is not worth mentioning.

Now you can make a claim about a specific situation such as picking an elf when the con penalty does not hurt you but the dex bonus could help. Also you can make a general comment that with the thief class a demihuman is better to a significant degree in the time you need it most-the early game. I will freely give that one but it is not exactly that big of a deal as a general statement.

Well I actually wrote up a little piece on this a while ago.It took me a little while to find it so I hope you find it to at least be a good read


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15767742&postcount=198

[Giant2005]

I haven't played a featless game and don't think I'd even consider it.
I would however consider a sem-featless game. Semi in the sense that feats are unavailable to anyone but a Rogue or Fighter and only on their levels where they get bonus ASIs (6 and 14 for a Fighter and 10 for a Rogue).

[MeeposFire]

Well I actually wrote up a little piece on this a while ago.It took me a little while to find it so I hope you find it to at least be a good read


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15767742&postcount=198

I don't disagree with your evaluation of what the advantages are only in how much they matter. Also my view point is just looking at the racial ability and not the class. As I said before there is little to make you really want to play an elf or a half elf if you are playing a fighter/mage. For the most part you will be just as awesome either way (assuming no level limits of course). You will notice the abilities given due to being a fighter/wizard you are much less likely to remember that specifically being an elf was the big win part of the equation.

Now if you could implement original D&D attribute bonus ideas (which had bonuses start earlier and at a fairly useable progression) and if you institute ways of having more control over ability scores you might be able to claim the save boosting races have a pretty nice benefit out of proportion to other racial benefits though two of those races have significant drawbacks in item usage potential.


Also in your tier one discussion you have longsword but you did not put down cestus+punching specialization which as far as I can tell is far superior.

[pwykersotz]

No, it shouldn't. That's kind of my point - if I have a weakness, I shouldn't have to 'try hard' to make that weakness hurt me. If the other stats are bad I don't have to try to deliberately screw myself over with my weaknesses, they do it for me. If I have a character with 3 constitution then he'll get sick all the time and go down to a single swing, if I have a character with 3 wisdom he's going get mind controlled more than Belkar does and not notice an elephant sneaking up on him. If I have a character with 3 intelligence then he'll... be bad at a few skills I was never going to take in the first place, because no-one wants intelligence so you just have the wizard take them? And be weak to like the one intelligence save in the game?

Intelligence is an absolute dump stat in 5e, at least charisma has a bunch of saves and you will need to interact with people, but putting 3 in intelligence had absolutely no downside.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, you're right. Int is one of the better stats to dump if needed.

But from your very own descriptive standpoint, you would have been clueless as to lore or any other knowledge and be completely unable to find your own pocket watch. You don't need to purposefully try and screw yourself. Leave that to the heavy RP. But as you've pointed out in the past, your single example is not necessarily indicative of general play. Investigation and History/Arcana/etc are very DM dependent.

Also, there are FOUR Int saves in the game that don't come from PC classes. Intellect Devourer, Mind Flayer, Hag spellcasting, and Variant Psychic Grey Ooze. :smalltongue:

[Logical DM]

From a purely mechanical standpoint, you're right. Int is one of the better stats to dump if needed.

But from your very own descriptive standpoint, you would have been clueless as to lore or any other knowledge and be completely unable to find your own pocket watch. You don't need to purposefully try and screw yourself. Leave that to the heavy RP. But as you've pointed out in the past, your single example is not necessarily indicative of general play. Investigation and History/Arcana/etc are very DM dependent.

Also, there are FOUR Int saves in the game that don't come from PC classes. Intellect Devourer, Mind Flayer, Hag spellcasting, and Variant Psychic Grey Ooze. :smalltongue:

Oh, wow, four. I stand corrected =P

I'm not sure what the word for this is, but those are skills that no more than one person needs to take. Each character that has athletics can climb that building better, but all the intelligence skills are things one character can know and tell the rest of the party. But you're right, it also doesn't help that the knowledge skills vary hugely in their usefulness - I try to make them useful, but there are plenty of DMs who are going to tell you what they want you to know anyway and aren't going to let you find out anything they don't.

[pwykersotz]

Oh, wow, four. I stand corrected =P

I'm not sure what the word for this is, but those are skills that no more than one person needs to take. Each character that has athletics can climb that building better, but all the intelligence skills are things one character can know and tell the rest of the party. But you're right, it also doesn't help that the knowledge skills vary hugely in their usefulness - I try to make them useful, but there are plenty of DMs who are going to tell you what they want you to know anyway and aren't going to let you find out anything they don't.

Maybe crowd-sourcing or something similar is the term you're looking for?

[Logical DM]

Maybe crowd-sourcing or something similar is the term you're looking for?

Hm, that works pretty well. I'll use that, thank you.

[ArchangelAzrael]

In a featless game I think (besides casters obviously) classes that suffer from mad would shine a tad better.

I am thinking Barbarian ( max str dex con) Paladin (max str cha con) and monk (max dex wis con).

They all get plenty of features (especially the last two) that you wont miss the feats too much and the abilities increases as you level matter more to you than anyone else (to the point that most of those classes have trouble grabbing more than one-two feats when feats are allowed).