They handeled feats wrong in 5e

[Spacehamster]

First off made them optional which will prob lead to less new feats in the future which is a shame with how much they can shape a players playstyle.

Secondly made them share spot with ASI's literally making you wait to level 8 or 12 before you can take one if you don't want to end up missing a lot due to sub par main attribute.

Third(know many will disagree on this one): no feat chains, always loved specialization, love social/influence playstyle? Take feat chain a, enjoy slicing people up with dual wield? Invest in chain b and so on.

I think they should have overall made feats weaker but still useful and have them had their own separate levels not being part of ASI.

Thoughts on how 5e handles feats, did they do it good? Bad?

[mephnick]

Like I said in the other thread: Requiring feats and ASI's to share the same spot almost guarantees no one will take flavourful but weaker RP feats like Keen Mind and rarely take middling feats like Healer if it benefits a niche build (Fast Hands rogue).

[Specter]

5e's schtick is that you don't need to plan every step of the way at the beginning of your career or end up with a poorly-optimized character. In 3.5, per instance, if you didn't plan your feats carefully you wouldn't be able to get the best ones anytime soon, or ever. In that regard, it's a great thing that feat chains are gone.

As for the ASI competition, it would be sad if ASI's weren't for 2 points. In 3.5 again, you could only raise one point at every four levels, which was near negligible given that a cheap magic item could give you +2. Now you can either really buff your stat or be a talented guy. Up to you.

I can totally understand someone not liking this system, but it's not an ill-planned one.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Like I said in the other thread: Requiring feats and ASI's to share the same spot almost guarantees no one will take flavourful but weaker RP feats like Keen Mind and rarely take middling feats like Healer if it benefits a niche build (Fast Hands rogue).

Keen mind goes on people who got odd numbers on their important stat. With Point Buy, that happens on races that get +2 to that stat - meaning that the system drives the races with those +2's to also end up being the races with those accent feats. I think this was really well done.

So, for instance, it's gnome wizards (and, to a lesser extent, maybe AT's and EK's) that get Keen Mind, Linguist, and Observant. It's Dragonborn, Half-Orcs, and Mountain Dwarves, that get *AM, Athlete or Tavern Brawler. It's Tieflings and Half-Elves that get Actor.

Outside of point buy, it means that getting odd numbers actually does something cool, instead of just feeling wasteful.

[bid]

Keen mind goes on people who got odd numbers on their important stat. With Point Buy, that happens on races that get +2 to that stat - meaning that the system drives the races with those +2's to also end up being the races with those accent feats. I think this was really well done.
Not really. Players will go 14+2 and use those 2 extra points elsewhere. Keen mind is an RP feat.

[Specter]

Not really. Players will go 14+2 and use those 2 extra points elsewhere. Keen mind is an RP feat.

Not everybody uses point buy; most games I played had either fixed stats made up by the DM or the standard array. In those cases, those feats were very common at the table (especially Resilient).

[pwykersotz]

I have the opposite feeling about all your points. I like less feat bloat, no feat chains, and that they share space with ASI's. I don't think they're perfect, but they're pretty solid.

[Foxhound438]

I think it's nice that, with a single feat doing as much as they do, a good feat can make a character really unique* and fun to play. I say unique, but that's only in comparison to a featless character- every barbarian in history has taken great weapon master, so it's hardly unique in that sense, but at the end of the day the feats are generally actually worth foregoing an ability score improvement.

[MeeposFire]

I have the opposite feeling about all your points. I like less feat bloat, no feat chains, and that they share space with ASI's. I don't think they're perfect, but they're pretty solid.

Yea I do not miss feat chains. I also don't mind lacking so much feat bloat though getting a few more would be cool over time.

I do not mind having ASIs and feats sharing space (for one I like that they reward you for sticking with classes). I also do not mind having some tables that give automatic feats as you level (some just do it at 1st others do more as you level). I think having he option for no feats was a good idea and that by default we have an easy and fairly effective way of adding them in if you want to.

[MrStabby]

I have mixed views on this.

I like feat chains - or at least short ones. The trouble is they cant really work in 5th edition due to the long wait between feats. Waiting that long for a signature ability for your character is pretty slow. In 3rd edition with a feat at first level,and a feat every three levels you could get pretty far up a feat chain in the early game. In 5th, assuming no V.human, to get the third feat you could get by level 6 in 3rd ed you would need ton be level 12. Some feats having prerequisites would open up design a lot more but it probably can't work in the system.

What I didn't like about the feat chains was that it was almost always obvious where to jump off. Either the feats kept getting better so you got tied in (which will then to nothing to boost diversity) or there was a bad one where people would stop. They are hard to balance, but maybe there is some hope it could work.

I liked some aspects of prerequisites though. Some feats needed other stats - intelligence to learn certain attacks for example. This provided an incentive to not dump some stats so hard and opened up other playstyles.

Personally I think they could have split feats into half feats and given one every 2 levels instead.

I would like to see more feats though; as it is there is little competition for what to take meaning a lot of characters all seem to come out the same. A bit of variety is nice rather than playing in a game with a fighter, a barbarian and a paladin and everyone is wielding a greatsword with great weapon mastery... and then wondering how to equip your own bladelock.

[rooneg]

I think there are plenty of arguments both ways here, but I will point out that I see no reason to assume that feats being an optional part of the game will prevent them from producing more. They've already shown up in unearthed arcana, and the developers have stated that people ask for them. Sooner or later we'll get a book with more player options and I'd be shocked if it didn't have more feats. It'll probably get bundled along with other stuff like spells and class archetypes, but feats will be there, if for no other reason than people really like them.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Not really. Players will go 14+2 and use those 2 extra points elsewhere. Keen mind is an RP feat.

Keen mind is a situationally useful feat. Obviously, if it's not going to be of use in the campaign, then nobody is going to use it, and will spend those resources on other things. But that's really independent of the issue of whether or not feats come at the price of ASI's.

[Asha Leu]

I was a bit thrown by the whole ASI or Feat thing at first, but I've actually found it works really well letting you customise your character, choosing betweeb either straight increases in skill/power or more varied option. The fact that a lot of feats also provide minor ability score boosts helps make it feel like your not really "giving up" anything when you choose a feat over an ASI. I wouldn't mind some (minor) feat chains, though.

[ad_hoc]

I think they got feats exactly right.

Not each individual feat, but the design behind them.

They should be things that you don't take for every character. They also should shape your character when you do take them.

If a character doesn't have a specific reason to have a feat, they shouldn't have one. Most characters at a table shouldn't have feats for that reason.

Feats are poorly designed when they are better than the +2 and feel essential for basic character concepts (eg GWM).

Actor is an example of a well designed feat. It is rare to be taken, but the odd time that a character takes it, that character is The Actor.

[Gignere]

I think they got feats exactly right.

Not each individual feat, but the design behind them.

They should be things that you don't take for every character. They also should shape your character when you do take them.

If a character doesn't have a specific reason to have a feat, they shouldn't have one. Most characters at a table shouldn't have feats for that reason.

Feats are poorly designed when they are better than the +2 and feel essential for basic character concepts (eg GWM).

Actor is an example of a well designed feat. It is rare to be taken, but the odd time that a character takes it, that character is The Actor.

GWM is not categorically better than +2 strength. Depends on party composition, absent bless or an easy way of getting advantage GWM is weaker than +2 strength.

[EliteChoboHax]

Havent actually played my first game yet, i did create a character and i opted to pick up the Actor Feat as i got one for free and it felt perfect for me, as im going to play a Sorc and go into the line of impersonating people. But, honestly, i feel quite alot of the feats isnt anything i'll care about, compared to the stat increase. I think they should have made the feats more equal in power. Some seems horribly weak and others must haves (depending on class). And overall, the incredible few feats there is, still baffles me. It feels like you have so limited freedom to build something you think would be cool. Looking forward to testing it out, but i have a feeling i wont be super into the limitations, which most people i've talked to about it has also told me bugged them

[Fflewddur Fflam]

First off made them optional which will prob lead to less new feats in the future which is a shame with how much they can shape a players playstyle.

Secondly made them share spot with ASI's literally making you wait to level 8 or 12 before you can take one if you don't want to end up missing a lot due to sub par main attribute.

Third(know many will disagree on this one): no feat chains, always loved specialization, love social/influence playstyle? Take feat chain a, enjoy slicing people up with dual wield? Invest in chain b and so on.

I think they should have overall made feats weaker but still useful and have them had their own separate levels not being part of ASI.

Thoughts on how 5e handles feats, did they do it good? Bad?

Totally disagree. I think the fact that they made it a "Feat or ASI" choice was a great way of
1) minimizing too many feats on characters
2) forcing players to make balanced choices about their character's progression. If you take a feat, that can be a sacrifice of improving an ability that can have an impact on your character's power.
3) Feat chains suck. Your character has to not only be planned very carefully from levels 1-20 but it also made characters more generic since everyone would just get the same 6 feats for that class.

[Anderlith]

Feats were dont really well this addition.
I hate feat chains & tiny bonuses. I like the idea of getting a little powerful package of options. Its like getting interesting class features that are universal with an odd touch of fluff now & again. Its about adding options more than power. Linking it to Ability score development is kind of annoying but i understand why its there & dont see it as wrong

[LaserFace]

I have the opposite feeling about all your points. I like less feat bloat, no feat chains, and that they share space with ASI's. I don't think they're perfect, but they're pretty solid.

Basically what I thought as well.

Personally I think if you want more feats or similar special abilities not covered by classes, just ask a DM to design you something as a reward. Or an existing feat as a reward. The core mechanics being rather indifferent to feats strikes me as good because nobody is dependent upon making the correct choice, and whatever you do it's probably pretty useful.

[mgshamster]

A friend of mine doesn't allow players to pick feats. They can only take ASIs.

Feats are instead story rewards. You accomplish a mission, you may get the option for a feat. Alternatively, your character may hear of a master of [some fighting style] that you can go on a quest to acquire the feat. There's no limit to the number of feats you can acquire, and you can get them any level. It just depends on the adventure and the in-character decisions you make.

[Kane0]

You could always hand out RP feats (sans ability boost) as rewards instead of magic gear. Its all optional.

[Asmotherion]

I agree that feats should have been independent from the ASI system. I would have put them as a default option when a character reaches Levels 1/5/10/15/20 and get the Fighter bonus feats. And, I think nobody uses them as a variant rule anyway, so...

I however disagree about feat chains. I'm quite happy it's no longer here, as it took away the liberty of customisation. If you took 1 feat from a feat chain, you couldn't neglect to take them all, and in the end that was sad.

[JAL_1138]

I would like to see more feats though; as it is there is little competition for what to take meaning a lot of characters all seem to come out the same. A bit of variety is nice rather than playing in a game with a fighter, a barbarian and a paladin and everyone is wielding a greatsword with great weapon mastery... and then wondering how to equip your own bladelock.

GWM is kind of terrible for Paladins; they don't have a reliable source of Advantage or bonuses big enough to offset it, and only get two attacks so they can't count on repeated attempts. Polearm Master + Sentinel is a better combo for them by far; Shield Master on a sword-and-board is also much better.

Barbarians, Champions, and melee Battlemasters do pick GWM up often, because they have ways to get around the penalty. But a Crossbow Expert+Sharpshooter Battlemaster is a very viable alternative to GWM, thanks to a better offset of the -5 through Archery Style's +2 and the added range.

EK is often better off with Warcaster and Shield Master than with GWM, since they're already great tanks, and that just makes them ridiculous. If it's a Dex build, potentially add in Defensive Duelist to cut down on uses of the Shield spell. They can also try for a cheesy Booming Blade build with a three-feat build of PAM, Warcaster, and Spell Sniper, or more simply go with PAM+Sentinel to add some stickiness to their tankiness. Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster are also solid ways to add to their utility. Without Maneuvers or an expanded crit range to help offset the GWM penalty, they benefit less from it than BM and Champions.

With as many two-feat combos as there are (e.g., Warcaster+Shield Master, Crossbow Expert +Sharpshooter, PAM+Sentinel), and the occasional three-feat combo (e.g. PAM+GWM+Sentinel, etc), you could almost say there are some short feat chains with a looser structure that doesn't strictly require sticking to the chain or determine the order in which the feats are taken. Closest might be the armor feats, where for instance a character not already proficient in heavy armor would need to take (at least) Heavily Armored (and maybe Lightly Armored and Moderately Armored) before Heavy Armor Master.

[Cybren]

GWM is kind of terrible for Paladins; they don't have a reliable source of Advantage or bonuses big enough to offset it, and only get two attacks so they can't count on repeated attempts. Polearm Master + Sentinel is a better combo for them by far; Shield Master on a sword-and-board is also much better. gwm is only "terrible" for paladin's because edgelords forget that devotion paladins exist

[djreynolds]

Sacred weapon with a 20 charisma, basically offsets GWM's -5. Coupled with bless. Too easy.

[Knaight]

There are individual feats that come across as a bit sloppy, but I really like the core concept. Tying them in with ASIs is one of those things where I could have gone either way, but it worked to make them optional (which was a nice change), and getting rid of feat chains is one of my favorite changes in 5e. 5e in general did a very good job of stripping out the need for long term character planning, and makes level by level choices much more viable. There's no building to fit prestige class prerequisites, there's no taking feats so you can take later feats, there's no BoNS manuever prerequisite nonsense (which was particularly crap given that the reasoning behind it should have applied to spells just as much, and yet it definitively didn't).

[Finieous]

I think they got feats exactly right.

Not each individual feat, but the design behind them.


I agree. Even the feat designs themselves are overall pretty solid. I have a philosophical objection to one feature (Crossbow Expert canceling disadvantage in melee) and I tweak some of the interactions between feats (basically, nixing -5/+10 on feat-granted bonus-action attacks), but that's really it. Otherwise I've just added some new feats to support other martial styles a little better.

[tkuremento]

What I dislike is how ASI/Feats are so heavily tied to classes. I like how Fighter still gets more feat opportunities like usual but besides that I don't like how if I want to have a bit of flavour and dip only 3 levels in a class I am hindered by losing out on an ASI/Feat. Then I have to wait way longer in my second class, level 7, to get one. Or I could take another level in the first class but take longer to get into the second class.

[Hrugner]

I agree completely, but the feats in 5th ed sort of showcase the design of the rest of 5th ed. Optional, shallow, and accessible. It would sort of be weird if 5th ed stayed what it was but then had these elaborate feat trees.

[Shriketalon]

One thing I think they should have done with feats is make the ribbon abilities natural parts of ability score improvements. At the moment, a lot of the flavorful ideas are attached to +1 feats which players will rarely use, especially if they have any other stat on their entire sheet that is an odd number.

What I think they should have done is have a pool of ribbons. Every time you take a +1 to a stat, you also pick a ribbon ability. So instead of saying "I take +1 to Int and +1 to Con", you'd say "I take an Int bonus and the photographic memory option, and a Con bonus and the ability to hold my breath longer". They'd all be little things, but it would make people feel more attached to their stat bonuses and encourage them to add flavor to their PCs as the math increases.

[Llama513]

That's not a bad way to handle that, I like it, however it would be hard to balance out and attach the combat benefit feats, unless those would seemly become part of the fighting style, as a way of having it progress at higher levels, or something like that

[Syll]

First off made them optional which will prob lead to less new feats in the future which is a shame with how much they can shape a players playstyle.

I completely agree. As sparse as new official material is, I have a hard time believing they spend much time on adding to an 'optional' rule.


There are individual feats that come across as a bit sloppy, but I really like the core concept. Tying them in with ASIs is one of those things where I could have gone either way, but it worked to make them optional (which was a nice change), and getting rid of feat chains is one of my favorite changes in 5e.

I don't mind so much that ASI's are tied to Feats, but I really could have done without the ASIs being tied to class level.


5e in general did a very good job of stripping out the need for long term character planning, and makes level by level choices much more viable.

Seriously, far and away my biggest gripe with this edition. It all just feels so sterile


One thing I think they should have done with feats is make the ribbon abilities natural parts of ability score improvements. At the moment, a lot of the flavorful ideas are attached to +1 feats which players will rarely use, especially if they have any other stat on their entire sheet that is an odd number.

What I think they should have done is have a pool of ribbons. Every time you take a +1 to a stat, you also pick a ribbon ability. So instead of saying "I take +1 to Int and +1 to Con", you'd say "I take an Int bonus and the photographic memory option, and a Con bonus and the ability to hold my breath longer". They'd all be little things, but it would make people feel more attached to their stat bonuses and encourage them to add flavor to their PCs as the math increases.

That's a really neat idea.

[Knaight]

Seriously, far and away my biggest gripe with this edition. It all just feels so sterile.

That's one of two takes. Mine is more on the "good riddance" end of the spectrum. Suddenly characters are free to change instead of bound to an existing path, and it makes it feel a lot less sterile than feat chains and the like do.

[MeeposFire]

Yea note ther eis a difference between feat chains and a bunch of feats that work well together. I prefer the later which is what 5e has.

Feat chains mean you have to take a number of feats to get what you really want. Why not just get what you really want at the start? One of the big issues in 3e is the fact that many useful things are just too expensive in terms of feats and are not worth the investment (also the worst offenders are feats for weapon users).

For instance instead of having to take dodge and mobility, to get spring attack we just have to take spring attack in 5e. Why would you want to take things like dodge and mobility which were not good feats and you probably did not want them?

Heck in some cases an entire feat chain could be one feat in 5e like for instance how they turned power attack and cleave into one feat in 5e.


You can say you want more feats or better feats. You may even say you want more feats that work well with each other but I really don't think you want actual feat chains.

[DrDinocrusher]

You can say you want more feats or better feats. You may even say you want more feats that work well with each other but I really don't think you want actual feat chains.

I think one of the biggest issues with feat chains, balance aside, was that they were huge traps for new players. It's not very intuitive to look at the feat you want and then read backwards until you had your build all figured out. So new players were super vulnerable to wrecking their character's effectiveness by not adequately planning out their feat progression. Doubly so for martials of course.

[MeeposFire]

I think one of the biggest issues with feat chains, balance aside, was that they were huge traps for new players. It's not very intuitive to look at the feat you want and then read backwards until you had your build all figured out. So new players were super vulnerable to wrecking their character's effectiveness by not adequately planning out their feat progression. Doubly so for martials of course.

Yea and a new player is not going to realize how little utility a feat may give and then use up a lot of resources getting it. Think of the poor soul that goes for whirlwind attack. It has a very small niche (needs to be surrounded and a full round action ready and decide that spreading damage out is better in this case than concentrating on one target) but costs you dodge, mobility, spring attack, combat expertise, and then whirlwind attack. 5 feats just to get what you want and it is not even that good or applicable in most situations but hey it costs 5 feats it has to be powerful right? In 3.5 it would be debatable whether whirlwind attack was worth even going for if it had no prerequisite feats but 5 is WAY overpriced.

[Cazero]

They should have made feats exclusive to fighters/rogues bonus ASI. Then the two classes that relies exclusively on skill rather than magic would truly be more skilled, and the big dip required to acquire a feat would mean you can make them truly equal to class features.

[Waazraath]

I'm ok with it. My biggest doubt is the balance between feats, there are a few that seem just too weak like charger, martial adept, savage attacker and weapon master.

The reason we don't see many new feats is mostly because we don't see that much new concent at all, I think.

[DKing9114]

gwm is only "terrible" for paladin's because edgelords forget that devotion paladins exist

Depends on the combat roles of the devotion paladin-mine uses his high ac to close with the toughest enemies on the field, so investing in a feat best used against enemies with low ac and/or low hp isn't terribly helpful

[Cybren]

That's not relevant to my point

[MinotaurWarrior]

One thing I think they should have done with feats is make the ribbon abilities natural parts of ability score improvements. At the moment, a lot of the flavorful ideas are attached to +1 feats which players will rarely use, especially if they have any other stat on their entire sheet that is an odd number.

What I think they should have done is have a pool of ribbons. Every time you take a +1 to a stat, you also pick a ribbon ability. So instead of saying "I take +1 to Int and +1 to Con", you'd say "I take an Int bonus and the photographic memory option, and a Con bonus and the ability to hold my breath longer". They'd all be little things, but it would make people feel more attached to their stat bonuses and encourage them to add flavor to their PCs as the math increases.g

I that dilutes the flavor, and people taking them 'just cause' it's free means that whern the player who thinks a feature is genuinely cool tries to whip it out for a moment in the spotlight, someone else who doesn't care at all says, "oh, yeah. Me too. I can do that just as well as him."

Also, the Keen mind memory feature would be so annoying if it was that cheap.

Choices are good.

[Tanarii]

I run a featless campaign, so I mostly see feat use in AL. Which means, of course, people stick almost exclusively to 'combat' feats. Since AL is a haven for the same kind of combat optimizer that decries the non-combat feats and thinks that ASI stat boosting is required that we find so commonly in online forums. It makes me sad ... and reinforces my decision to run a featless campaign.

Even though I frame it as combat-as-war (ie think first, fight second), my campaign is still a combat focused game overall, and to be frank, I find most of the combat feats overpowered. The huge outliers should have been 2-feat chains. GWM, PAM, and Sharpshooter in particular.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I run a featless campaign, so I mostly see feat use in AL. Which means, of course, people stick almost exclusively to 'combat' feats. Since AL is a haven for the same kind of combat optimizer that decries the non-combat feats and thinks that ASI stat boosting is required that we find so commonly in online forums. It makes me sad ... and reinforces my decision to run a featless campaign.

Even though I frame it as combat-as-war (ie think first, fight second), my campaign is still a combat focused game overall, and to be frank, I find most of the combat feats overpowered. The huge outliers should have been 2-feat chains. GWM, PAM, and Sharpshooter in particular.

That's interesting (and reinforces my lack of desire to participate in AL). My experience has been totally different. I find the combat feats almost completely unused, while the non-combat feats are chosen more.

I run 3 separate campaigns (2 of teenagers and one of adults). Feats are allowed, and they rolled well for stats so almost everybody has a feat. They're all also new to 5th edition (except one). I think the only "combat" feat that got chosen was spell sniper. Observant, linguist, and several other such feats have shown up, but none of the prime-offender feats like GWM or PAM. Even the (few) v-humans. Even though they're "weak", teenagers love dragonborn for some reason.

I also played for a year with a very mixed group (some experts, some newbies). GWM and PAM never showed up. People chose feats with an eye to the character, not the mechanics. That's what 5th edition allows. Its hard to make a non-functional character. Even my (short-lived) warlock with only one score above 10 (rolled 7, 7, 7, 9, 10, 12) could have functioned. Unlike 3.P, where careful planning is needed to not break (in one direction or the other) your character, 5th is much more forgiving. And I'm very pleased.

In general, I think people worry about optimization potential in theory WAY more than it's really a problem. This forum has a bad case of "if it's not optimal it's junk" and just generally over-estimating the use of DPR as a meaningful measure.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

They handeled feats wrong in 5e

You must be Bach-ing mad.

[JAL_1138]

Sacred weapon with a 20 charisma, basically offsets GWM's -5. Coupled with bless. Too easy.

I stand corrected; I've only played an Ancients Paladin. No Sacred Weapon for the super-happy Green Knight.

[SharkForce]

there isn't a desperate need to max out your attribute early on in 5e. you can easily afford to push feats back a bit. late game, for anything that relies on save DCs a lot? yeah, you'll want max attribute then, because every point of DC makes a big difference. but at level 4, it's not particularly noticeable whether you have DC 13 or 14, and it's even less noticeable whether you have +5 or +6 to hit.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You must be Bach-ing mad.

We better go into Haydn.

(PS. Another vote for new feats being a valid design overall, though combat feats are wonky.)

[Foxydono]

A friend of mine doesn't allow players to pick feats. They can only take ASIs.

Feats are instead story rewards. You accomplish a mission, you may get the option for a feat. Alternatively, your character may hear of a master of [some fighting style] that you can go on a quest to acquire the feat. There's no limit to the number of feats you can acquire, and you can get them any level. It just depends on the adventure and the in-character decisions you make.
I like that idea! This only works well if you always play with the same group though. I would like some more feats that give +1 ability score of your choice with something else. For example, I'm not really tempted to take the actor feat if I'm not using Charisma and that's a shame. I know it fits thematically, but I think you'll get more variety if you disbolish this system. Why can't you have trained a bit of Strength, while developing your acting skills? A certain stat doesn't have to be tied with a half feat.

[mephnick]

Why can't you have trained a bit of Strength, while developing your acting skills?

+1 ASI + Half a feat every 4 levels could be kind of fun

Like at level 4 my Battlemaster takes +1 Con and the enemy speed reduction on OA of Sentinel.

[Millface]

I think it's really all on the DM. If you think that some of the feats aren't worth ASIs then your DM isn't blending in and out of combat situations very well and doesn't properly prep for the characters he has. That's pretty common though, it's surprisingly rare for a DM to actually have the mindset that everything you prep and do is to make sure that everyone at your table has a blast on game night, and that nobody gets forgotten or pushed into the corner because they made a unique decision or two when building their character.

Example: One of my players had a Lore Bard/Knowledge Cleric/Rogue. His entire mantra was skill proficiencies and useful feats that parties don't normally have, such as Skilled, Observant, and Dungeon Delver. In combat he played full support, healing/harassing/buffing and made himself useful without throwing alot of dice around, and I can safely confirm that if the party had to pick one person to never, ever leave behind it was him, despite not being optimized for maximum damage output. On top of that, the player had a blast being good at basically everything. I hooked the guy up with some fun and simple magic items to help him stay safe if he was creative, and he was. To this day still one of my favorite PCs that's graced my table.

[comk59]

That's one of two takes. Mine is more on the "good riddance" end of the spectrum. Suddenly characters are free to change instead of bound to an existing path, and it makes it feel a lot less sterile than feat chains and the like do.

Gotta agree with this, the rampant "planning my character from 1-20" thing was one of the final nails in the coffin for me.

[Syll]

That's one of two takes. Mine is more on the "good riddance" end of the spectrum. Suddenly characters are free to change instead of bound to an existing path, and it makes it feel a lot less sterile than feat chains and the like do.

My comment wasn't in reference to feat chains, but rather to skill ranks, pre-reqs, PRCs and planning a character path to 20. I realize your feelings are probably the same on those as well though.

As it stands, you pick a race, a class, a backstory. 1-2 levels later you pick a Archetype.... and that's it. Auto-pilot to 20. Feats and Multiclassing being optional only compounds this problem. I recognize that is seen as a virtue by a lot of people (and indeed, is the primary theme of this edition) but that doesn't mean I can wrap my head around understanding WHY that would be anything but a failing.

[Vogonjeltz]

First off made them optional which will prob lead to less new feats in the future which is a shame with how much they can shape a players playstyle.

Secondly made them share spot with ASI's literally making you wait to level 8 or 12 before you can take one if you don't want to end up missing a lot due to sub par main attribute.

Third(know many will disagree on this one): no feat chains, always loved specialization, love social/influence playstyle? Take feat chain a, enjoy slicing people up with dual wield? Invest in chain b and so on.

I think they should have overall made feats weaker but still useful and have them had their own separate levels not being part of ASI.

Thoughts on how 5e handles feats, did they do it good? Bad?

Being optional and sharing the ASI spot works to allow them to be optional, so in terms of the system those choices make sense together.

Although I did enjoy the interesting powers of feat chains, feats just aren't as important in 5e, and there aren't nearly enough ASI to allow a chain of even 2 feats to be practical, it simply requires too many optional rules (non-variant human? oh then a 3 feat chain will require more than 50% of your entire leveling to achieve, and if you multi-class much you risk being unable to do that at all.

At the same time despite my interest in the feats of 3.5, I also didn't like the way that feats in 3.5 started substituting almost as core class features, somtimes more important than even what the class itself did. Once more and more feats became printed they started to function the way that a deck of cards in a CCG might, at some point you simply won't select some feats because they are worse than all other alternatives; and other feats might be taken, but only because they function as gateways to better feats.

So...yeah, within this system I'd advise against trying feat chains or anything like that, it's just a terrible rat-race of joylessness.

[JAL_1138]

We better go into Haydn.


Nah, I wouldn't worry about the potential consequences; Mozart not that bad. There's not even any need to Liszt them.

[2D8HP]

I completely agree. As sparse as new official material is.......
While I rush out and buy each new book, I'm pretty happy with how much and what's available (I have picked up a little third party as well)
Seriously, far and away my biggest gripe with this edition. It all just feels so sterile.It doesn't feel too sterile to me at all, I actually feel that I have more than enough options.

My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Heal

Hide

Climb

Swim

Convince

One could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!

I don't feel any lack.

:confused:

As far as Feats go they're a level of complexity that I'm glad I may choose to either enjoy or ignore


You must be Bach-ing mad.


We better go into Haydn.


Nah, I wouldn't worry about the potential consequences; Mozart not that bad. There's not even any need to Liszt them.

:biggrin:

[mephnick]

If you think that some of the feats aren't worth ASIs then your DM isn't blending in and out of combat situations very well and doesn't properly prep for the characters he has. That's pretty common though ...

...
I hooked the guy up with some fun and simple magic items to help him stay safe if he was creative, and he was.

Yeah sorry, different goals I guess. I don't prep for specific characters and parties, that's not my job. I prep a setting, NPCs and then adjudicate the reactions of those two things. I'm not changing my encounter tables because someone took Keen Mind. Combat is still, and always will be, the point of the D&D system. So if you make fluff feat compete with combat feats AND ASI's then they're going to be ignored by a lot of players even if they'd be somewhat useful.

[BigONotation]

This might be an unpopular opinion, however I believe feats are necessary to empower martial characters. Especially Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Shield Master, Mage Slayer, etc. Without them, full casters just dominate too much.

I follow Kryx' feat ideal but not his list in that:
Only half-feats now exist and cost 1 out of 2 ASI points on a level you get ASI.
For example, Great Weapon Master is now split and have just Power Attack or just Cleave or both if you are willing to invest the whole ASI into it. It also allowed me to make existing weak feats or feats that are niche into half-feats and I see them taken much much more.

[Tanarii]

Yeah sorry, different goals I guess. I don't prep for specific characters and parties, that's not my job. I prep a setting, NPCs and then adjudicate the reactions of those two things. I'm not changing my encounter tables because someone took Keen Mind. Combat is still, and always will be, the point of the D&D system. So if you make fluff feat compete with combat feats AND ASI's then they're going to be ignored by a lot of players even if they'd be somewhat useful.
Combat is just one part of the system. And many non-combat feats significantly enhance the other so-called 'pillars' of play. They aren't just fluff.

Even in a heavy dungeon delving game with plenty of combat, there's still tons of room for both exploration, trap & puzzle defeating, and yes, even social interactions.

Edit: in fact, in some cases, even in that kind of game actually getting into combat might be a last resort.

All that said .. Note that one reason I still didn't include them in a combat-as-war heavy dungeon delving sandbox-y game specifically because I felt that the many combat feats are too powerful. The other reason is I felt they detract from the class archetypes too much.

[Theodoric]

There are basically two types of feats. Feats that are half-ASI's with some slight benefits instead of a second +1 to a stat ('fluffy' ones), or feats that are on the level of class features, that basically add an extra 'trick' of sorts. The latter break the mold of classes a bit. I suppose you can see that as a good thing, but I find them to be rather fiddly and usually not all that balanced. 'Munchkin-y' is maybe a bit much, but it's definitely the closest 5e gets to that.

ASI's-with-a-twist like Linguist on the other hand work a bit better for me since they're more obviously a trade between having the full ASI and a minor benefit, that might be worth it for people who would really like that (ie. want to RP a character who knows a lot of languages) but don't imbalance the game all that much. If all feats were like that, I'd run them without hesitation.

So, I understand that for some people feats and what they bring to the game (in tweaking the mechanics a bit) are a genuine addition, but I personally don't find them to be worth it all things considered. Having feats as an optional rule seems like a decent compromise from that perspective.

[mephnick]

Combat is just one part of the system. And many non-combat feats significantly enhance the other so-called 'pillars' of play. They aren't just fluff.


Oh for sure. It's just that in reality it's one big marble pillar and a couple of wood fence posts. WotC just doesn't want to admit it. I love exploration encounters and have had many effective social PCs in my games, but they are definitely not the focus of the system.

This is why I allow everyone to take a free feat at level 1 from a list that excludes all the good feats. Our warlock with Actor dominates parts of the game, but I doubt he would have taken it if it had to compete with +CHA and combat feats.

[erok0809]

I have mixed feelings on feats in 5e. I like that they provide multiple things in each feat. I don't like that they're tied to class level rather than character level. I like multiclassing, so that kinda sucks. I also like variety between characters of the same class and archetype, so it's not too great in a combat-focused game where a lot of the fluffier feats won't see use.

I am a huge fan of theorycrafting and character building, almost moreso than actually playing the game, so I miss the feat chains, harder prerequisites, and need to plan your character before you play. I also don't really like the idea of feats as story rewards, because I want to be able to plan my character out without knowing what DM I'll have or what campaign I'm playing in. Then when it comes to game time I pick one of the multitude I've made that fits with the campaign and the rest of the party, and adjust the backstory for the setting. This edition is just a bit bland when it comes to that kind of character building.

[Syll]

While I rush out and buy each new book, I'm pretty happy with how much and what's available (I have picked up a little third party as well)It doesn't feel too sterile to me at all, I actually feel that I have more than enough options.

My PC's can:
Fire arrows
Swing swords
Track
Sneak
Heal
Hide
Climb
Swim
Convince
One could entertain
And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!

I don't feel any lack.

:confused:

As far as Feats go they're a level of complexity that I'm glad I may choose to either enjoy or ignore

:biggrin:

You could do that on day 1. The edition has been out for 2 1/2 YEARS in that time they have managed to release 8 new books. FIVE of them possessed nothing but fluff. That is shameful. A single 3.5 splat book would contain more crunch than the 2.5 years worth of cash-grabs WOTC has churned out.

Do you have any idea how little I care about the umpteenth pre-made setting? In seven years I have not had a single DM ever use a pre-made setting in any form or fashion. The current trend of 5e is the equivalent of paying $40 for a video-game's DLC that contained nothing but cutscenes. 5 times.

[Cybren]

You could do that on day 1. The edition has been out for 2 1/2 YEARS in that time they have managed to release 8 new books. FIVE of them possessed nothing but fluff. That is shameful. A single 3.5 splat book would contain more crunch than the 2.5 years worth of cash-grabs WOTC has churned out.

Do you have any idea how little I care about the umpteenth pre-made setting? In seven years I have not had a single DM ever use a pre-made setting in any form or fashion. If I want fantasy fluff I would (and do) read any of the myriad fantasy series out there. The current trend of 5e is the equivalent of paying $40 for a video-game's DLC that contained nothing but cutscenes. 5 times.

And i'm very glad that that's the state of affairs

[comk59]

And i'm very glad that that's the state of affairs

Yeah, compared to what 3.5 was, I vastly prefer this. Plus, the quality of Volo's puts it way above the majority of 3.5 splats, in my book at least.

[jaappleton]

You could do that on day 1. The edition has been out for 2 1/2 YEARS in that time they have managed to release 8 new books. FIVE of them possessed nothing but fluff. That is shameful. A single 3.5 splat book would contain more crunch than the 2.5 years worth of cash-grabs WOTC has churned out.

Do you have any idea how little I care about the umpteenth pre-made setting? In seven years I have not had a single DM ever use a pre-made setting in any form or fashion. The current trend of 5e is the equivalent of paying $40 for a video-game's DLC that contained nothing but cutscenes. 5 times.

Emphasis mine.

Considering how out of hand things could get, mechanics wise, when you stacked certain things together... I'm glad they're being very careful about releasing content and keeping balance in mind.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Emphasis mine.

Considering how out of hand things could get, mechanics wise, when you stacked certain things together... I'm glad they're being very careful about releasing content and keeping balance in mind.

It's not even just about balance. Having excess mechanical splats kills RPG editions, because it breaks the network externalities that make big name RPGs valuable.

If I want to play 5e and understand what's going on, all I need is the PhB. Everyone who has that can very easily play together, and so getting a PHB gives me a degree of access to this huge network of awesome gamers.

If I want to play 3.5 and understand what's going on, I probably need the PhB + all the books my fellow players are using. Else I'm gonna be like "Divine meta-whatsnow?" And two groups with different lists of permitted books are gonna be playing very different games.

Pathfinder 'solved' this problem by just having an insanely extensive SRD.

[Squiddish]

My group has a way to fix number two:

The first level background feat:
When you start the game, each player gets one feat related to their background. The DM has final say, but if they can come up with a logical, story-based reason why they would have it, then they should probably get the feat.

[Syll]

It's not even just about balance. Having excess mechanical splats kills RPG editions, because it breaks the network externalities that make big name RPGs valuable.

If I want to play 5e and understand what's going on, all I need is the PhB. Everyone who has that can very easily play together, and so getting a PHB gives me a degree of access to this huge network of awesome gamers.

If I want to play 3.5 and understand what's going on, I probably need the PhB + all the books my fellow players are using. Else I'm gonna be like "Divine meta-whatsnow?" And two groups with different lists of permitted books are gonna be playing very different games.

Pathfinder 'solved' this problem by just having an insanely extensive SRD.

You know what else kills RPGs? Stagnation.

We're not talking some mercurial landscape where the rules change every other week. I'm talking a book of substance a couple times a year. (By comparison 3.5 released 9 splat books in its year 1)

[Little boy]

My main issue with the feats is that they are the one thing that was amazingly good or garbage. There isn't a sweet middle ground for story. Lucky is so amazing. Tavern brawler is not. Luckly,5e doesn't require optimization to have fun at least

[LaserFace]

You could do that on day 1. The edition has been out for 2 1/2 YEARS in that time they have managed to release 8 new books. FIVE of them possessed nothing but fluff. That is shameful. A single 3.5 splat book would contain more crunch than the 2.5 years worth of cash-grabs WOTC has churned out.

Do you have any idea how little I care about the umpteenth pre-made setting? In seven years I have not had a single DM ever use a pre-made setting in any form or fashion. The current trend of 5e is the equivalent of paying $40 for a video-game's DLC that contained nothing but cutscenes. 5 times.

That seems like the incorrect metaphor to make, because cutscenes are by their nature non-interactive. If your DM doesn't let you interact with the setting, its characters, all that stuff... then uh, I think your DM is doing it wrong.

Personally I have zero interest in more crunch because the base rulebooks have covered everything I've needed them to. If there's like a weird corner case and my player wants support where the rules don't suffice, a DM can modify stuff slightly to make it work. I don't need more books for that.

[Cybren]

You know what else kills RPGs? Stagnation.


That's only true if your definition of "killed" is "no longer releasing splat books" which is, yknow, begging the question

[comk59]

That's only true if your definition of "killed" is "no longer releasing splat books" which is, yknow, begging the question

Yeah. By that definition, 2e has been killed off, which is pretty clearly not true.

[Citan]

Not really. Players will go 14+2 and use those 2 extra points elsewhere. Keen mind is an RP feat.
Not really.
Players can very well also go 15+2 so they can have 18 at their first ASI, along with great benefits: Keen Mind is much more dependant on DM cooperation (but can be the greatest depending on it), but Observant also works with INT and brings very solid, sustained benefits to any character.

GWM is kind of terrible for Paladins;


But a Crossbow Expert+Sharpshooter Battlemaster is a very viable alternative to GWM, thanks to a better offset of the -5 through Archery Style's +2 and the added range.

EK is often better off with Warcaster and Shield Master than with GWM, since they're already great tanks, and that just makes them ridiculous.

At least Devotion and Vengeance Paladin get built-in compensation for GWM. All Paladins get Bless also. ;)

The rest are really just your (fine) opinions on how you like best to play some classes. ;)


To get back on topic, I really like how they did this in 5e.
While I don't dislike the feat chains when it really makes sense, I really like that they rather designed "strong feats" that give several benefits in one package, so they can be useful in different situations, for different classes.

As for the "ASI vs feat" complaint... Well, it really is an honest drawback imo, because of bounded accuracy. Sure, +1 in a stat makes a statistical difference, but there still will be how many times where you just really needed to achieve your goal yet failed by such a margin that no bump would have ever been sufficient...

I feel they made feats optional because they weren't sure of the balance of feats compared to each other (in which they were right imo), and that is the saddest thing.
But when available, I often favor a feat instead of a plain stat bump, because precisely it brings a different "strength" out. ;)
Not saying that all feats are the same worth though. Some would certainly need a bit of redesign, others are missing...
And I would not be against a small chain feat in specific cases such as Magic Initiate or Martial Adept...


Yeah sorry, different goals I guess. I don't prep for specific characters and parties, that's not my job. I prep a setting, NPCs and then adjudicate the reactions of those two things. I'm not changing my encounter tables because someone took Keen Mind. Combat is still, and always will be, the point of the D&D system. So if you make fluff feat compete with combat feats AND ASI's then they're going to be ignored by a lot of players even if they'd be somewhat useful.
I guess you say that because you get this impression coming from the number of numbering detail pertaining armor, weapons and spells...
But this is just because...
1) Combat means life or death, so it has to be precisely codified so that consequences are acceptable for players.
2) It's much easier to set up detailed rules that govern a "fight" that detailed rules to govern social encounters or exploration challenges, because those are just far too reliant on how the DM contextualize them...
That's why PHB just gives some indications on how to create them, then "off you go".
But exploration and social interactions are as important as fighting in the core of 5e. It's just that there is nothing forcing any DM to actually respect the balance between the three pillars, and some pre-made campaigns you can find tend indeed to focus on fighting.
You can perfectly run a campaign with little fight but since plenty of fun in 5e though. ;)



In general, I think people worry about optimization potential in theory WAY more than it's really a problem. This forum has a bad case of "if it's not optimal it's junk" and just generally over-estimating the use of DPR as a meaningful measure.
+1000 (emphasis mine). :/

[2D8HP]

You could do that on day 1. The edition has been out for 2 1/2 YEARS in that time they have managed to release 8 new books. FIVE of them possessed nothing but fluff. That is shameful. A single 3.5 splat book would contain more crunch than the 2.5 years worth of cash-grabs WOTC has churned out.Ah I see the difference in perspective then.
I mostly think in terms of 1e.
My first DM used the oD&D LBB's and supplements plus the 1977 AD&D Monster Manual, wheras I used the 1977 Basic Set, and then the 1978 Players Handbook, and the 1979 Dungeon Masters Guide. The closest to new rules afterwards was Deities & Demi-Gods until Unearthed Arcana came out in 1985, which I was real excited about until I really read it, and after I saw that it so unbalanced the classes I didn't buy anything new until 3e came out 15 years later (so I completely skipped 2e).
I felt cheated when first 3.5 and then 4e came out so soon after 3e so I boycotted those editions (but I did get The Complete Adventurer, so I have one 3.5 "splat" book), and honestly if my son hadn't turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D I probably would have skipped 5e as well, but I found I really liked 5e, and one of the things I like about it is that it seems like a pretty complete game already.
Sorry that you find it's lacking. I think there's lots of extra content at the DM's Guild, have you explored that?

The current trend of 5e is the equivalent of paying $40 for a video-game's DLC that contained nothing but cutscenes. 5 times.Um... the last video game that I played that I can name was Missle Command in the 1980's, which I payed $.25 to play for a little while, and I'm afraid I have no idea what a DLC may be.
Can you please translate?

[comk59]

Um... the last video game that I played that I can name was Missle Command in the 1980's, which I payed $.25 to play for a little while, and I'm afraid I have no idea what a DLC may be.
Can you please translate?

DLC stands for downloadable content. Basically, you pay more money for expansion packs and missions and the like.

If you never had a console, it'd be weird to explain. The general conceit is "you liked this game? Give us some more money, and you can have more game without having to wait for a full sequel".

[bid]

Not really.
Players can very well also go 15+2 so they can have 18 at their first ASI, along with great benefits: Keen Mind is much more dependant on DM cooperation (but can be the greatest depending on it), but Observant also works with INT and brings very solid, sustained benefits to any character.
But then you start 15+2 because you want Observant. You don't take Observant because you somehow ended up with an odd Int/Wis.

But it's still true that if you want one of those half-feat, you'll try to start with the race with the matching +2. But I see this more as feat implies the race than race implies the feat.

[Syll]

That's only true if your definition of "killed" is "no longer releasing splat books" which is, yknow, begging the question

That's not my definition of killed, that's my definition of stagnation. Yes, of course people still play 2e. People play FFXI still too, that doesn't mean it isn't a ghost of its former self.


That seems like the incorrect metaphor to make, because cutscenes are by their nature non-interactive. If your DM doesn't let you interact with the setting, its characters, all that stuff... then uh, I think your DM is doing it wrong.
I have never played in a published setting, because no DM I've met has ever wanted to run one in the last 7 years. So yeah, I find them to be non-interactive

[comk59]

That's not my definition of killed, that's my definition of stagnation. Yes, of course people still play 2e. People play FFXI still too, that doesn't mean it isn't a ghost of its former self.


I have never played in a published setting, because no DM I've met has ever wanted to run one in the last 7 years. So yeah, I find them to be non-interactive

Not playing in those settings, and those settings being non-interactive, are two very different and wholly unrelated things.

[Knaight]

My comment wasn't in reference to feat chains, but rather to skill ranks, pre-reqs, PRCs and planning a character path to 20. I realize your feelings are probably the same on those as well though.

As it stands, you pick a race, a class, a backstory. 1-2 levels later you pick a Archetype.... and that's it. Auto-pilot to 20. Feats and Multiclassing being optional only compounds this problem. I recognize that is seen as a virtue by a lot of people (and indeed, is the primary theme of this edition) but that doesn't mean I can wrap my head around understanding WHY that would be anything but a failing.

I'm down with skill ranks - I strongly dislike the 3.x implementation*, but picking skills to increase is fine by me. As far as auto-piloting to 20 goes, I'd argue that planning the character path to 20, pre-reqs, and PRCs all encourage that. Once you have your plan you tend to end up locked in to it, instead of getting to make choices incrementally for how things are for the character at present. Meanwhile if you just pick a feat when you get a feat instead of continuing along a feat chain you had to pick way back at level 1 to get the feat at the end you wanted, then suddenly these feat choices are actually choices during play.

*Cross class skills are just obnoxious, completely restricted skills worse, and the skill point per level budgets ludicrously stingy given the length of the skill list.

[LaserFace]

That's not my definition of killed, that's my definition of stagnation. Yes, of course people still play 2e. People play FFXI still too, that doesn't mean it isn't a ghost of its former self.

Do you think 5E is losing popularity due to "stagnation"? As far as I know it's doing just fine.



I have never played in a published setting, because no DM I've met has ever wanted to run one in the last 7 years. So yeah, I find them to be non-interactive

You're now talking about how you've never done something and how that should be taken to mean it's useless. I mean okay, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean you should make the argument the way you did.

You basically said a Not-Game was sold, when, to many people, the mountains of written information provided in a setting are way more valuable to a game experience than say, expanding upon Superiority Dice, or some outright experimental combat mechanics that introduce a Dartboard or something. It's not the same thing.

[Syll]

Do you think 5E is losing popularity due to "stagnation"? As far as I know it's doing just fine.



You're now talking about how you've never done something and how that should be taken to mean it's useless. I mean okay, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean you should make the argument the way you did.

You basically said a Not-Game was sold, when, to many people, the mountains of written information provided in a setting are way more valuable to a game experience than say, expanding upon Superiority Dice, or some outright experimental combat mechanics that introduce a Dartboard or something. It's not the same thing.

I don't have anything against published settings, but i have never met a dm willing to run one. That doesn't mean i think no one uses them, just that i dont think my experience is uncommon.

Crunch is something you can use in any campaign, setting specific material, is by definition not.

So i don't think it's a false equivocation to desire something that is actually accessible to me, vs something that is only available to someone tbat can finda group of like minded individuals.

[Plaguescarred]

Personally i really like the absence of feat bloat and feat chains, and don't really mind that they compete with ASI's.

[Cybren]

I don't have anything against published settings, but i have never met a dm willing to run one. That doesn't mean i think no one uses them, just that i dont think my experience is uncommon.

Crunch is something you can use in any campaign, setting specific material, is by definition not.

So i don't think it's a false equivocation to desire something that is actually accessible to me, vs something that is only available to someone tbat can finda group of like minded individuals.

It is however a logical fallacy to assume that because the particular product you want doesn't exist, that the publisher of the products you don't want are failing

[Syll]

It is however a logical fallacy to assume that because the particular product you want doesn't exist, that the publisher of the products you don't want are failing

Oh, no i think it's perfectly logical to believe actively ignoring portions of your player base will reduce sales.

Further, i see no reason why you would play the same adventure path repeatedly, so yes, i also posit that will reduce the player base further as they get bored and move on

Releasing crunch and fluff in tandem however, provides new options so that content doesn't stagnate.

[Syll]

You're now talking about how you've never done something and how that should be taken to mean it's useless. I mean okay, you might not like it, but that doesn't mean you should make the argument the way you did.

.
I'm not moving the goal posts. I stated this from the start

Why can't they release that experimental dartboard in Curse of Strahd so that there is something for everyone?

[Tanarii]

Do you think 5E is losing popularity due to "stagnation"? As far as I know it's doing just fine.
It is doing just fine. Claiming that it's stagnating because they're not releasing content is totally wrong. It's an argument from preference, not an argument from actual basis.


It is however a logical fallacy to assume that because the particular product you want doesn't exist, that the publisher of the products you don't want are failingAn unfortunately common one. This happened with '4e is failing' long before Essentials came out and it actually started to bomb, or Pathfinder had actually caught up in sales.

[2D8HP]

DLC stands for downloadable content. Basically, you pay more money for expansion packs and missions and the like.

If you never had a console, it'd be weird to explain. The general conceit is "you liked this game? Give us some more money, and you can have more game without having to wait for a full sequel".So a DLC is like a supplement, while a sequel is like an edition?
I think I get it now.
Thanks!


I have never played in a published setting, because no DM I've met has ever wanted to run one in the last 7 years. So yeah, I find them to be non-interactiveI think that "Phandelver" (the adventure that came with the Starter Set) flat out rocks!, and "Storm Kings Thunder" has some cool stuff, but I can see not liking the "Realms" (there's just something I don't like about the "Factions"


Do you think 5E is losing popularity due to "stagnation"? As far as I know it's doing just fine.

Now that's something I love!

After having a great time playing D&D in the 1970's and 80's, by the early 1990's it was really hard for me to find anyone who still wanted to play (some tables with other less fun RPG's were available).

Now every week there's an Adventurers League game, and if I wanted a D&D like game with the Pathfinder Society.

[bid]

Oh, no i think it's perfectly logical to believe actively ignoring portions of your player base will reduce sales.
Oh it's perfectly possible to actively ignore portions of your player base while increasing sales. As long as you do what the majority wants.

[comk59]

Oh it's perfectly possible to actively ignore portions of your player base while increasing sales. As long as you do what the majority wants.

I dare even say, standard business practice.

[Syll]

I dare even say, standard business practice.
Standard business practice is to alienate segments of the user base? I advise against starting any businesses.

Perhaps I should have not said 'reduce' sales, rather 'restrict'. What business model are you following that says 'eh, sales are good enough, why bother expanding the demographic'?

[Cybren]

Standard business practice is to alienate segments of the user base? I advise against starting any businesses.

Perhaps I should have not said 'reduce' sales, rather 'restrict'. What business model are you following that says 'eh, sales are good enough, why bother expanding the demographic'?

Because if meeting the needs of one demographic turns off six others you haven't grown your business

[Syll]

Because if meeting the needs of one demographic turns off six others you haven't grown your business

While I agree with that premise, I haven't see any evidence that including more crunch would do such a thing. Creating it with the frequency that 3.5 did, certainly.
However, Volo's has been Very well received, and it greatly increased the available number of races. The pre-release UA speculation threads seem to garner a lot of excitement and anticipation as well.

[Citan]

Oh it's perfectly possible to actively ignore portions of your player base while increasing sales. As long as you do what the majority wants.


I dare even say, standard business practice.
----

Standard business practice is to alienate segments of the user base? I advise against starting any businesses.

Perhaps I should have not said 'reduce' sales, rather 'restrict'. What business model are you following that says 'eh, sales are good enough, why bother expanding the demographic'?
Well, that's exactly NOT what they said.
Ignoring a segment of potential user base =/= "not bother expanding the demographic".

Don't forget that the world does not revolve around you. Demographics evolve without your consent or opinion.
So, as long as the public you target grows "by itself", your sales and market share also grow, even if you don't try and target other publics. ;)

Standard business practice is categorizing the whole public into different pieces, then for each piece evaluate how much it would "cost" to reach it and trigger the will to buy/use, and how many sales / how much benefit it would net in the end. If the ratio between both is bad, you don't make the effort. As plain as that.

While I agree with that premise, I haven't see any evidence that including more crunch would do such a thing. Creating it with the frequency that 3.5 did, certainly.
However, Volo's has been Very well received, and it greatly increased the available number of races. The pre-release UA speculation threads seem to garner a lot of excitement and anticipation as well.
On that note, I think that those complaining that WoTC don't release enough content are missing the point.
They have been. Even more regularly than usual these last weeks. That's the point of Unearthed Arcanas.

For those who really love the crunch, it gives them something to chew on, and use in their games.
For WoTC, it provides useful feedback on what works and what seems fun to the players, so it ensures their next paid release will be highly qualitative...

They probably realized that players couldn't afford to pay too often for small pieces of content (cf Dragon Magazine) so they use this way to maintain some public activity around the game, content the players who want some new things immediately, and ensure that their paid release will reach a higher conversion rate.

It's also probably why they supported the partnership with digital content distribution, because they understand that the community in whole can "keep the game alive daily" very well in their stead... Although the quality of content may certainly be more variable, there is plenty of choice...

[Syll]

----

On that note, I think that those complaining that WoTC don't release enough content are missing the point.
They have been. Even more regularly than usual these last weeks. That's the point of Unearthed Arcana


And I have been far more interested in 5e as a result. Unfortunately they don'thave a good track record of converting that material into an official source.



----
Well, that's exactly NOT what they said.
Ignoring a segment of potential user base =/= "not bother expanding the demographic"


It was hyperbole born of frustration with the expressed sentiment that 'what the majority wants' is, of course, aligned with their own personal preferences. WotC hasn't released any data on individual book sales that I can find, so there isn't publicly available data to support his supposition.

I don't need the world to revolve around my preferences, I just want there to be evidence available that it revolves around yours if you are going to make declarations about what the majority wants.


Edit: I don't meant to suggest that because I can't find the data, it doesn't exist. By all means if you know where I can see individual book sales please tell me where it is, I would be very interested to see the numbers.

[mgshamster]

Standard business practice is to alienate segments of the user base? I advise against starting any businesses.

Perhaps I should have not said 'reduce' sales, rather 'restrict'. What business model are you following that says 'eh, sales are good enough, why bother expanding the demographic'?

My company does that all the time. It's very much standard business practice.

When the cost to produce is more than the profit of sales, you stop producing.

Additionally, when you have a limited production resource and you need to decide where to put those resources, placing them in a product that will sell 500 units is a much worse business decision than placing them in a product that will sell 10,000 units.

That's how business works.

[Citan]

It was hyperbole born of frustration with the expressed sentiment that 'what the majority wants' is, of course, aligned with their own personal preferences. WotC hasn't released any data on individual book sales that I can find, so there isn't publicly available data to support his supposition.

I don't need the world to revolve around my preferences, I just want there to be evidence available that it revolves around yours if you are going to make declarations about what the majority wants.

You may have misunderstood my post.
I have no opinion on the particular case of how WoTC is handling his target public (although the current situation is fine by me, I don't pretend being representative of the majority).

I was reacting to the general point made by others about how to manage a business, which you tried to bring down although it's a perfectly valid and widely followed method.

[Syll]

You may have misunderstood my post.
I have no opinion on the particular case of how WoTC is handling his target public (although the current situation is fine by me, I don't pretend being representative of the majority).

I was reacting to the general point made by others about how to manage a business, which you tried to bring down although it's a perfectly valid and widely followed method.

And I was reacting to their general point that their preferences are obviously the preferences of the majority. If you do not share this viewpoint, than ascribe the "you" in my post to cybren, mgshamster, or bid, who all believe (at least that's my takeaway from their posts) that including such content is detrimental to sales.




Additionally, when you have a limited production resource and you need to decide where to put those resources, placing them in a product that will sell 500 units is a much worse business decision than placing them in a product that will sell 10,000 units.

That's how business works.

And if you combine those products? Remember this is a book; Developing 1 doesn't not exclude development of the other, you can include both in the same final product. They have already decided to use resources to work on new content as evidenced by:


"We have a bunch of D&D content for you to playtest, discuss, and mull over. We have enough material, in fact, that we will be releasing Unearthed Arcana multiple times a month for the next few months. Look for the material on Mondays, and get ready to answer surveys about what you see here. We’ll take the things you love and refine them, and we’ll take the things you don’t like and either toss them out or rebuild them. Either way, your feedback will be invaluable.

Because both of us—Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford—are working on Unearthed Arcana for the foreseeable future, the Sage Advice column will be on hold temporarily."

In fact, by that last line they are actually focusing on UA to the detriment of other ventures. So either they have decided that they want to 'place their resource in a product that will sell 500 units' or perhaps, just maybe you shouldn't make declarations of what the majority wants, without any evidence of what the majority IS

[mgshamster]

And if you combine those products? Remember this is a book; Developing 1 doesn't not exclude development of the other, you can include both in the same final product. They have already decided to use resources to work on new content as evidenced by:

It does based on a timeline scale. You can only work on so much at one time. To date, what they've released is what they've focused on. Their focus is based on their market research for what customers want.

They may change what they focus on in the future - the fact that they haven't focused on a specific product you want right now is testement to their own research about what the pluraty of their customers want.

Remember, this is the only edition of D&D that's had substantial market research done prior to development. They also have ongoing surveys for new UA content, so research is on-going.


In fact, by that last line they are actually focusing on UA to the detriment of other ventures. So either they have decided that they want to 'place their resource in a product that will sell 500 units' or perhaps, just maybe you shouldn't make declarations of what the majority wants, without any evidence of what the majority IS

Notice that the venture they're placing resources into is one that has the potential for sales (UA), where the one they are no longer putting resources into is one that will never produce sales (rules clarifications and developer opinions).

As for which UA they actually release into a profit producing product, we don't know. It'll be based on their marketing research.

They may not release much new crunch (we know they've said they will release a new splat book, but they haven't said when). For now, the primary driver in sales is an increased interest in the game due to live play videos and podcasts - as well as a simplified design or ease of play to get new players to the game. For them to release UA, it does multiple things:

1) Drives new interest or renewed interest, keeping people involved in the game and likely to buy their other products
2) Drives market research for increased knowledge of what their customer base wants
3) Allows playtest of new material to ensure new material is balanced to the core game (saves money by having customers test product instead of staff).
4) Saves publishing money (there's practically zero cost in publishing a PDF compared to a book).

Their profits for D&D are up, and their sales are up. The number of games being played are up compared to their competitors and their own past products.

Their own market research has showed that a simplified rule set, a slow release schedule, and a focus on adventure and campaign settings drive sales. So far, they've been shown correct. As the market changes, they may adopt a new tactic.

I'm not making any claims about any given product or what the abority of customers may or may not want. What I'm saying is that WOTC has done substantial market research for this edition, and they're producing what the their research says the majority of customers want. And I'm saying that ignoring a small group may have greater profits when you're focusing on larger groups - and that is a common tactic in private industry. Heck - my company just canceled several product lines, because it cost more to produce than it brought in profits. Those customers were pissed, but we were losing money and they weren't willing to spend more.

[mephnick]

This is a very interesting discussion about feats. Oh wait no it's not.

[Jamgretter]

My group has a way to fix number two:

The first level background feat:
When you start the game, each player gets one feat related to their background. The DM has final say, but if they can come up with a logical, story-based reason why they would have it, then they should probably get the feat.

The great thing about it is the removal of Variant Humans, as everyone starts with a feat. Nick and I can pick interesting races, without hurting our optimizing souls.

[Syll]

This is a very interesting discussion about feats. Oh wait no it's not.

Players frequently respond to stimuli in ways unforseen by the DM, much to the DM's consternation; why would a thread in a D&D forum be any different? :P



As for the rest... I don't really have a reason to argue against business models that I fundamentally agree with. This was more a reaction on my part to the response I got to my comments that 5e does not provide enough new crunch. My perception of those response (accurate or not) was "You're not happy? GOOD, screw you."

Edit: I still would really like to see how sales data compares for Storm King's Thunder vs Volo's though...

[mgshamster]

Players frequently respond to stimuli in ways unforseen by the DM, much to the DM's consternation; why would a thread in a D&D forum be any different? :P



As for the rest... I don't really have a reason to argue against business models that I fundamentally agree with. This was more a reaction on my part to the response I got to my comments that 5e does not provide enough new crunch. My perception of those response (accurate or not) was "You're not happy? GOOD, screw you."

Edit: I still would really like to see how sales data compares for Storm King's Thunder vs Volo's though...

My apologies for giving that impression. I'll try to do an analysis of those two books tonight, while I'm at my in-laws house.

I also apologize for going off topic.

[Syll]

My apologies for giving that impression. I'll try to do an analysis of those two books tonight, while I'm at my in-laws house.

I also apologize for going off topic.

Thank you. I apologize for being combative.


On the topic of feats I appreciate that they can function as something of mini-archetype. I would like to see more of them in the vein of the UA on feats, as a devotion to a specific weapon group. Since you choose a feat in place of a ASI it represents (IC) something of a devotion to a weapon or style to the exclusion of a more general improvement.

With that in mind I dislike feats as optional rules, since I feel it restricts your ability to further specialize your Character, irrespective of your Class.

[Waazraath]

Damn people, you almost restore my fate in 'discussing things on the internet'. Must be Christmas :smallbiggrin:

[Spellbreaker26]

Standard business practice is to alienate segments of the user base? I advise against starting any businesses.

Perhaps I should have not said 'reduce' sales, rather 'restrict'. What business model are you following that says 'eh, sales are good enough, why bother expanding the demographic'?

Releasing more Splats wouldn't expand the demographic, it would reduce it.
It means you have to buy more and more books to stay competitive.

I only have to buy the PHB to be able to play DnD. The only stuff I'm missing that comes up a *lot* are the melee cantrips from SCAG, but I can do without them.

When a new player wants to play 5e, they can make a reasonable character with the free basic rules; they also have access to the Elemental Evil free pdf. They can then buy the PHB, and whenever they sit down at any DnD table in the world, they'll have a good understanding of all the non-homebrew material that they have. That encourages them to keep up.

New players want to hear this: "You'll love playing as a Paladin! You can use Divine Smite to deal radiant damage..."
New players don't want to hear this: "Nah, a basic paladin build is too weak. Buy the new Tome of War splat for the Rainbow Samurai subclass for Paladins, then multiclass with the Pact of the Shield Warlock using the Edgelord Patron. You'll need to buy Aztec Support for that."

Then even if the new player does that they might very well find that the Tome of War splatbook is banned at this table because it's too OP and the money that they spent on it is worthless.

Maybe WotC could stand to release some more crunch, but they have to be careful because in the long term they could end up reducing the appeal of DnD to new players instead of increasing it.

[MeeposFire]

Just as an aside 2e partly chocked itself on its splats by the end so more material can hurt you. 5e is nowhere near that but it is something to keep in mind that adding material is not a panacea for making money.

[bid]

And I was reacting to their general point that their preferences are obviously the preferences of the majority. If you do not share this viewpoint, than ascribe the "you" in my post to cybren, mgshamster, or bid, who all believe (at least that's my takeaway from their posts) that including such content is detrimental to sales.
I merely think WotC decided "going the 3.5 way" would not grow their business. You'd need quite a lot of hubris to be sure it is a failure.


Now, the feat mechanics seems fine to me. It's the wide variation of value from near-OP to trap that is wrong. The idea of feat being RP gifts is a nice fix.

[Citan]

Releasing more Splats wouldn't expand the demographic, it would reduce it.
It means you have to buy more and more books to stay competitive.

New players want to hear this: "You'll love playing as a Paladin! You can use Divine Smite to deal radiant damage..."
New players don't want to hear this: "Nah, a basic paladin build is too weak. Buy the new Tome of War splat for the Rainbow Samurai subclass for Paladins, then multiclass with the Pact of the Shield Warlock using the Edgelord Patron. You'll need to buy Aztec Support for that."

I think you nailed it pretty neatly with this.
In any case, it really echoes with me. I played only a few dozen hours 4e, and while I loved at first crunching everything that I could put my hands onto, it became overwhelming once you took every added option in Dragon Magazine and such.
Worst, I unwillingly and unsuspectingly disgusted one of my fellow players in the campaign we played, because I made a very fun, but blatantly thought-out character with plenty of options (hybrid multiclass \o/ - I don't think you could say it was "optimized", especially considering how many rolls I missed, but I had always a nice trick available), while he was playing a "plain Rogue" and felt extremely limited in actions and efficiency (to be fair, he was acting like a Barbarian would, so by the rules of 4e, the "sneak attack" was rarely possible).

5e is the great gatherer in that aspect. You can optimize as long as you want, you won't usually make other characters useless (as least with point-buy). Or you can just start a character, no questions asked, and make choices along the way, knowing that there is no wrong turn to take anyways...

[JNAProductions]

Okay, you CAN screw up a build. 1 level of each class does not a good level 12 character make.

But it's hard, and you have to try to do so.

[comk59]

Okay, you CAN screw up a build. 1 level of each class does not a good level 12 character make.

But it's hard, and you have to try to do so.

Yeah, I'm running a table with 3 fresh meats, a Grognard, and an all out Power Gamer, and they all manage to have characters that are capable of participating equally.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I'm running a table with 3 fresh meats, a Grognard, and an all out Power Gamer, and they all manage to have characters that are capable of participating equally.

Oh yeah-the practical floor and ceiling are more than close enough that you can play at a table with both bad and good optimizers and have fun. But the THEORETICAL floor and ceiling are much further apart.

[MukkTB]

I'm fairly happy with general feat design. A well optimized character gets 1-3, and maximizes at least one stat at 20. Small number of feats, and the breadth of them means that each one feels special.

I'm not so happy with the balance. The variant Human breaks the feat economy, making it feel that starting as any other race is sub-par. The vanilla human is frustratingly bad. Some of the feats are much better than other ones. The combat feats in the player's handbook don't cover all weapon types. Polearm master is stupidly good. Pairing it with Sentinel is far above other options. The dexterity based combat feats are really poor which seems to balance out the fact that otherwise, dexterity based combat would be the clear way to go; Given that dexterity provides initiative in combat, and many useful skills out of combat.

I guess I'm saying that I'd like a balance pass. Which given that way tabletop RPGs are developed is a bit of a pipe dream. Yes I know I can houserule things. But I'm the kind of rules lawyer that prefers #1 optimizing within the rules as written and #2 keeping the same experience from gorup to group.

[Tanarii]

The vanilla human is frustratingly bad.Its much better in a rolled stats, no feats game.

Edit: rolled compared to standard array I mean.

[Citan]

Okay, you CAN screw up a build. 1 level of each class does not a good level 12 character make.

But it's hard, and you have to try to do so.
You know what? You are probably right, but even such a character wouldn't be useless at all, unless he also specifically chose redundant spells over all his casters levels...

And just a 2nd level in Bard or the right choice of Cleric domain (Knowledge, Life), or a 2nd level with a right Wizard school (Diviner) would still make him a very solid contributor to the party. Absolutely nothing breath-taking in fight like a pure caster or fighter could provide, but still very solid.

There have been some threads about such bizarre builds around on the forum in case you are curious... ;)

That is the one thing that I love the most about 5e.

The vanilla human is frustratingly bad. Some of the feats are much better than other ones.
I know this is a pretty popular opinion around here, but it is not mine.
On rolled stats, it can bring an amazing "point-buy" value if you have several odd stats at 15 or above, far beyond the other races.
On point-buy, it's a nice way to enable some strange multiclass combination (even the MADest of all, Monk / Paladin), or just a nice way to be good all-around. Especially in a no-feat games, this is of a great value since you can only spend ASI on bumping stats.

[Gignere]

I'm fairly happy with general feat design. A well optimized character gets 1-3, and maximizes at least one stat at 20. Small number of feats, and the breadth of them means that each one feels special.

I'm not so happy with the balance. The variant Human breaks the feat economy, making it feel that starting as any other race is sub-par. The vanilla human is frustratingly bad. Some of the feats are much better than other ones. The combat feats in the player's handbook don't cover all weapon types. Polearm master is stupidly good. Pairing it with Sentinel is far above other options. The dexterity based combat feats are really poor which seems to balance out the fact that otherwise, dexterity based combat would be the clear way to go; Given that dexterity provides initiative in combat, and many useful skills out of combat.

I guess I'm saying that I'd like a balance pass. Which given that way tabletop RPGs are developed is a bit of a pipe dream. Yes I know I can houserule things. But I'm the kind of rules lawyer that prefers #1 optimizing within the rules as written and #2 keeping the same experience from gorup to group.

It's funny you say that no one plays anything but vhuman, because my current party and my last party there were no vhuman this is two campaigns 11 PCs in total. No one wants to play a race without dark vision.

[MukkTB]

I didn't say that no one plays anything but variant human. I said that the feat situation makes starting as anything other than variant human feel bad. Now this depends on group play-style. For example, my group has been running a ongoing loose home-made campaign. We started at level 1. We are currently levels 4 and 5. We will probably move on to something new in a bit. I'm hearing the idea of running a WOTC premade campaign. So I expect the group to make it to about level 7-10 and then move on to a new story. For us, that means that half the campaign any player that wasn't variant human had no feats. And the other half of the campaign they get 1.

This means that with our play style, someone who wanted to be a sentinel + polearm master would only be able to get there through variant human (or one of the couple classes with extra feats). This means that variant human is the only decent option for someone who has a character concept that requires the feat, and wants to start off with the concept fully realized. I'm not just talking about munchkin power optimization. Roleplaying feats, like sticking ritual caster on a mundane character to make the guy a "wizard" are also restricted.

Effectively darkvision is the most powerful racial feature you are likely to get. Not having darkvision is one of the strongest limitations on humans. But darkvision is situational. If any member of the party needs light to fight, most battles are going to be illuminated. If any member of the party blows chunks in sneaking, the party as a whole is not going to be stealthy (dm dependent). That means that on average a party needs one scout, someone who is good at stealth, and has darkvision. (You can always go no-scout of course.) A party only needs everyone to be good at stealth and have darkvision if the party manages to agree to that before character creation. Also some classes grant features that reduce the need to worry about darkvision. Warlocks have Devil's Sight which removes the problem completely. The light cantrip gives away your position, but doesn't require anyone to hold a torch.

Taking a race other than variant human to get darkvision is a decision that is sometimes correct, and sometimes a total waste of time. The sneaky no-heavy-armor dexterity types are going to enjoy it more. But even when it is the right choice, not getting that feat still feels really bad at low levels.

[Zippdementia]

People who think that feats were needed to define character aren't roleplaying. You dont need a mechanical benefit/detriment in order to build personality into your character. Feats existed for min maxing in pathfinder (or at least that is how they were used) and i am happy to see them gone. It doesnt take away an element of the game: it is a different game entirely and trying to shoehorn feats into it breaks that game.

Dont worry tho: im sure some supplement will bring them back.

[Specter]

I didn't say that no one plays anything but variant human. I said that the feat situation makes starting as anything other than variant human feel bad. Now this depends on group play-style. For example, my group has been running a ongoing loose home-made campaign. We started at level 1. We are currently levels 4 and 5. We will probably move on to something new in a bit. I'm hearing the idea of running a WOTC premade campaign. So I expect the group to make it to about level 7-10 and then move on to a new story. For us, that means that half the campaign any player that wasn't variant human had no feats. And the other half of the campaign they get 1.

This means that with our play style, someone who wanted to be a sentinel + polearm master would only be able to get there through variant human (or one of the couple classes with extra feats). This means that variant human is the only decent option for someone who has a character concept that requires the feat, and wants to start off with the concept fully realized. I'm not just talking about munchkin power optimization. Roleplaying feats, like sticking ritual caster on a mundane character to make the guy a "wizard" are also restricted.

Effectively darkvision is the most powerful racial feature you are likely to get. Not having darkvision is one of the strongest limitations on humans. But darkvision is situational. If any member of the party needs light to fight, most battles are going to be illuminated. If any member of the party blows chunks in sneaking, the party as a whole is not going to be stealthy (dm dependent). That means that on average a party needs one scout, someone who is good at stealth, and has darkvision. (You can always go no-scout of course.) A party only needs everyone to be good at stealth and have darkvision if the party manages to agree to that before character creation. Also some classes grant features that reduce the need to worry about darkvision. Warlocks have Devil's Sight which removes the problem completely. The light cantrip gives away your position, but doesn't require anyone to hold a torch.

Taking a race other than variant human to get darkvision is a decision that is sometimes correct, and sometimes a total waste of time. The sneaky no-heavy-armor dexterity types are going to enjoy it more. But even when it is the right choice, not getting that feat still feels really bad at low levels.

If you go Half-Elf with a Charisma class, you're better than a V. Human at level 4 and beyond. That's just one example.


People who think that feats were needed to define character aren't roleplaying. You dont need a mechanical benefit/detriment in order to build personality into your character. Feats existed for min maxing in pathfinder (or at least that is how they were used) and i am happy to see them gone. It doesnt take away an element of the game: it is a different game entirely and trying to shoehorn feats into it breaks that game.

Dont worry tho: im sure some supplement will bring them back.

Yeah, sorry, but you're wrong. Feats were created as a means to give benefits that didn't fit a specific class. For instance, fighters, paladins, barbarians and rangers can all fight on horseback. Since the developers didn't want to assign these benefits to a particular class, they made a feat that they all could take to be good at it (Mounted Combatant nowadays, but there were feat chains in the past). Taking away feats means limiting specific builds and removing a mechanical differential for everyone.

[Socratov]

People who think that feats were needed to define character aren't roleplaying. You dont need a mechanical benefit/detriment in order to build personality into your character. Feats existed for min maxing in pathfinder (or at least that is how they were used) and i am happy to see them gone. It doesnt take away an element of the game: it is a different game entirely and trying to shoehorn feats into it breaks that game.

Dont worry tho: im sure some supplement will bring them back.

I'm quoting you for being the most recent one to say it, but this will apply to anyone who claims the sentiment.

You know, this is like the Stormwind Fallacy all over again: your ability to optimise has nothing to do with your ability to roleplay. The two aren't even within the same plane of playership (if there is such a word, if not I just coined it). The fact that you want a character to be competent at a certain aspect of the game does not mean you can't roleplay it; it means just that: you want a character to be capable of doing a certain thing. People who like to make powerful PC's aren't necessarily bad roleplayers, and people who don't make powerful character are necessarily great roleplayers. Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers. Now, people, please repeat after me: "I shall stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy)."

On the topic of feats in particular: they are character customisation options. Options that don't necessarily belong to just a couple of classes but could be used by multiple or even multiclass characters. Like skills it's something any character could potentially do. Are some feats stronger then others? Well, for some characters, sure. Do some classes benefit more from feats? You sure betcha! Is that a problem? No. You see, at least in 5e, the persons most benefitting from feats are martial characters. Casters have little to no feats that are as powerful as some of ht feats the martials benefit from. And I think we can all agree that casters still reign supreme in dnd.

[LaserFace]

When people talk about caring more about feats than role playing, I think in their hearts they know you can still care about mechanics and provide memorable Character moments. I think what they really want to say is that if you really care so much about feats and levels and all that, you're just probably a bit of a dork, irrespective of your talents...but that would be presumptive and rude. Surely.

[tkuremento]

When people talk about caring more about feats than role playing, I think in their hearts they know you can still care about mechanics and provide memorable Character moments. I think what they really want to say is that if you really care so much about feats and levels and all that, you're just probably a bit of a dork, irrespective of your talents...but that would be presumptive and rude. Surely.

I like when feats can add to my RP. Halfling Bard who gets the Gourmand feat from UA to gain benefit from RPing as part chef. Now preparing a meal actually gives benefit to the team. That is what I care about in feats, if I can benefit the team and the more flavour the better it is. Beyond that the only reason to really get into roleplay is if others will care about it, if you are the only one at the table giving then it isn't so great--unless inspiration gets involved.

[pwykersotz]

I'm quoting you for being the most recent one to say it, but this will apply to anyone who claims the sentiment.

You know, this is like the Stormwind Fallacy all over again: your ability to optimise has nothing to do with your ability to roleplay. The two aren't even within the same plane of playership (if there is such a word, if not I just coined it). The fact that you want a character to be competent at a certain aspect of the game does not mean you can't roleplay it; it means just that: you want a character to be capable of doing a certain thing. People who like to make powerful PC's aren't necessarily bad roleplayers, and people who don't make powerful character are necessarily great roleplayers. Bad roleplayers are bad roleplayers. Now, people, please repeat after me: "I shall stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy)."

On the topic of feats in particular: they are character customisation options. Options that don't necessarily belong to just a couple of classes but could be used by multiple or even multiclass characters. Like skills it's something any character could potentially do. Are some feats stronger then others? Well, for some characters, sure. Do some classes benefit more from feats? You sure betcha! Is that a problem? No. You see, at least in 5e, the persons most benefitting from feats are martial characters. Casters have little to no feats that are as powerful as some of ht feats the martials benefit from. And I think we can all agree that casters still reign supreme in dnd.

I've always hated the Stormwind Fallacy. It's technically correct, the ability of someone to roleplay is not linked to their ability to optimize. But it is a VERY rare person that actually does both. The optimizer will even insist that they are playing in character, but if you ask anyone else at the table they'll say the opposite. This happened at one of my tables with one of my best friends, it was surreal. Basically, it takes an established trend that gamers all over have noted and then tries to misdirect the issue. Not that I think that either type plays the game wrong, just that it's different and sometimes there are incompatible expectations that the types bring to the table.

Although, in a microcosm I also disagree with Zippdementia. Defining a character with a mechanical ability is completely viable. I can name any number of separate superheroes I enjoy reading about who have very similar personalities but have different power sets. Same with fantasy heroes. And flavor without mechanical backing can be very difficult to play with, which opens it right back up to being optimizable. (Is that a word?) So while mechanics aren't needed, they're the only real connection to this game that you have. A trait you include that doesn't go on the character sheet is one that is entirely subjective, separated from the consequences of the game. It's why when a player I have wants to do something unique and outside of the rules as the basis for a character, I write up a new mechanic for them so it has meaning. And why it would be terrible if there was a feat that said: "You become great at cooking elven cuisine. Like, really great. And you have lots of elven friends because of it." There's nothing there to really grab onto. All roleplay opportunities are made better when they have game hooks, and game hooks can be optimized.

This ramble brought to you by pwykersotz, PBS, and the letter M. :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

I've always hated the Stormwind Fallacy. It's technically correct, the ability of someone to roleplay is not linked to their ability to optimize. But it is a VERY rare person that actually does both. The optimizer will even insist that they are playing in character, but if you ask anyone else at the table they'll say the opposite. This happened at one of my tables with one of my best friends, it was surreal. Basically, it takes an established trend that gamers all over have noted and then tries to misdirect the issue. Not that I think that either type plays the game wrong, just that it's different and sometimes there are incompatible expectations that the types bring to the table.I agree. It's a logical argument that doesn't often line up with the real world.

Roleplaying is making in-character decisions. You do that based on character motivations. Character motivations can always be defined or used (explicitly, implicitly or subconsciously) regardless of level of optimization. But in reality, people who focus on mechanics to optimize in character creation tend to make decisions during play based on mechanics more often than not, not on character motivations. That's the "Stormwind Fallacy" Fallacy.

That's one reason I insist my players right down some character motivations of some kind before the game begins. In 5e I use the formal personality system. That's the reason many DMs use backstory. As much as I hate backstory, I understand why they want it ... to ensure that time was spent on thinking of the character as something other than just a pile of mechanics when play begins.

This can often, but not always, hold true for people who insist they need a mechanical build to express their character concept. But that's a much fuzzier line, because if the mechanics don't support your character concept at all it just will never feel right in play. So in this case, they're definitely not independent ... no amount of character motivations / Roleplaying will make a failure of the mechanics to support a concept feel like your character.

Edit: of course, this is a bigger problem if the player thinks like a simulationist, because they will have trouble understanding or refluffing abstract mechanics and insist on defining /changing mechanics to match their notions of what they must mean in the in-game world.

edit2: also some players mistake optimization for required character defining abilities. In other words it's not good enough a Barbarian does more Greataxe damage or a Fighter Archer does more Longbow damage ... Clearly without Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter they can't really be an 'expert' at using them. This is a fallacy based on the predefined existence of a mechanic.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'm sorry, but you guys are making the same mistakes and misrepresentations that hundreds of others have made before you (only with a lot less rancour than some), first admitting that the fallacy is valid, but then sneaking it in the back way by appealing to some kind of universal "how we all know it is". You're assuming that a player's mechanical decisions can be correlated with a character's in-game decisions, that these sets are supposed to line up in some approved way, and that they will fail to do so given "optimizing". Pure Stormwind.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, but you guys are making the same mistakes and misrepresentations that hundreds of others have made before you (only with a lot less rancour than some), first admitting that the fallacy is valid, but then sneaking it in the back way by appealing to some kind of universal "how we all know it is". You're assuming that a player's mechanical decisions can be correlated with a character's in-game decisions, that these sets are supposed to line up in some approved way, and that they will fail to do so given "optimizing". Pure Stormwind.
I'm sorry, but you're making the same fallacy hundreds of others have made before you. First appealing to fallacy, then refusing to acknowledge despite it being a logical fallacy, it doesn't actually line up with reality of how (many) people act.

People aren't logic machines, and because of that reality doesn't align with the Stormwind Fallacy.

Edit: doesn't always align I should say. It's still a valid logical point for its original intent, which is to counter the idea that if you optimize you cannot Roleplay. This is obviously nonsense, which is what the fallacy is pointing out.

It's when people try to extend it to mean the opposite, that everyone who optimizes will still Roleplay, that it doesn't match reality. That's what I mean by the "Stormwind Fallacy" Fallacy.

(Also sorry I started this off snippy. Leaving it in as a reminder to myself to think before I post immediately & all snippy. :smallredface:)

[Knaight]

People who think that feats were needed to define character aren't roleplaying. You dont need a mechanical benefit/detriment in order to build personality into your character. Feats existed for min maxing in pathfinder (or at least that is how they were used) and i am happy to see them gone. It doesnt take away an element of the game: it is a different game entirely and trying to shoehorn feats into it breaks that game.

Personalities and capabilities aren't quite so detached as that - what one can do is generally at least a portion of who one is. Sherlock Holmes who can't investigate and is kind of dumb is no longer Sherlock Holmes; Conan who can't fight, can't sneak, and sucks at picking up languages is no longer Conan. There's a number of different ways to get that across, but given things like how anemic the skill system is feats are a pretty solid way of doing it.

[Zalabim]

It's when people try to extend it to mean the opposite, that everyone who optimizes will still Roleplay, that it doesn't match reality. That's what I mean by the "Stormwind Fallacy" Fallacy.

Just because the argument isn't in valid logic doesn't mean the conclusion is false. "That person is optimizing so they aren't roleplaying" isn't valid (that's the fallacy), but "That person is optimizing," and "That person is not roleplaying," can each be true as separate statements. You can't use the Stormwind Fallacy to prove that an optimizer is roleplaying. I think that falls under Fallacy Fallacy.

[Tanarii]

Just because the argument isn't in valid logic doesn't mean the conclusion is false. "That person is optimizing so they aren't roleplaying" isn't valid (that's the fallacy), but "That person is optimizing," and "That person is not roleplaying," can each be true as separate statements. You can't use the Stormwind Fallacy to prove that an optimizer is roleplaying. I think that falls under Fallacy Fallacy.
Right. That's what I was thinking in that regard.

But in retrospect, it's totally fair of Coffee_Dragon to call me out on it, because it's definitely not what I was saying. I was saying "plenty/some of people who optimize don't Roleplay" which isn't really a provable statement, as well as hinging on my personal definition of Roleplaying, and definitely sounds like it's committing the Stormwind Fallacy all over again.

The Stormwind Fallacy was coined to counter "all people that optimize don't Roleplay" and in that regard it's totally solid and matches reality.

[LaserFace]

The Stormwind Fallacy was coined to counter "all people that optimize don't Roleplay" and in that regard it's totally solid and matches reality.

I hate this term because it seems to skirt around the issue that you can't just say Stormwind Fallacy whenever someone says "you're too concerned about optimization" or whatever. Yes, it doesn't follow that you can only Either optimize or roleplay, but there are clearly people who come at the game build-first and character-second. Like Pwkyersotz said,


Not that I think that either type plays the game wrong, just that it's different and sometimes there are incompatible expectations that the types bring to the table.

The guy who is planning a build from levels 1-20 with "optimization" in mind and his head filled with numbers and abilities before he even knows his character's motivations, personality or even name isn't necessarily bad at the game. He might be able to really put his heart and soul into bringing the character to life, maybe they even have a fun, unique voice, and maybe the player could have even researched historical perspectives on their character archetype to "get it right".

The thing is, I've just never met this person. Or if I did, they didn't get a chance to shine their talents. As far as I'm aware, not a single person to transplant their Build into a Character has ever given me a moment of satisfaction in actual play. It doesn't mean it's universal truth that This Is Just How It Is, and it doesn't mean that other people can't be entertained by such a player. I just haven't been.

I think there are compatibility issues based on how folks approach the game that are not always the easiest to really articulate. I think it's common that folks who are frustrated by these divisions try to find universal phrases like "good at roleplaying" to attribute to the players they DO like, so they can distinguish this from that, but because they haven't found a real way to express it, it falls apart when you actually apply logic to the individual statements that accompanied the sentiment; it doesn't mean what the person wants to say is wrong, it just means the way they chose to express it was. When I see somebody say Stormwind Fallacy I get the impression they're just not even trying to understand because they're tired of jerks telling them they're not cool for playing a fantasy roleplaying game in a slightly different way.

So in terms of feats and junk, and splatbooks, all that jazz...yeah, I genuinely believe that new mechanics can be fun. I like things that can help everyone at the table enjoy the game. I'm not going to say if you care about your capacity to be effective in the game that you're not fun or can't contribute to the roleplaying or any of that. I just sometimes get a red flag when people can't relax about the precision of their numbers.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, the comment that started this, that if you think feats aren't needed to express a character concept you're not Roleplaying, does smack of a variation on the Stormwind fallacy.

Some character concepts, especially ones based on narrative characters, flat out can't be made within the 12 D&D archetype classes. Some can't be done even with the optional feats and optional Multiclassing, whereas others can. This has little to do with Roleplaying, even if you're like me and you use the broad definition of 'in-character decision making' for Roleplaying.

On the other hand, not all concepts need mechanic support in the form of a feat to be 'valid'. A character can be a natural leader without Natural Leader, a character can be 'good' with a weapon without a related combat feat just based on having a high appropriate matching score. A character might need the Linguist feat to be able to invent complex ciphers on the fly, or the Observant feat to be able to lip read ... or the DM might allow one or both of those as ability checks too, so they're just 100% reliable with the feat.

[jas61292]

The thing with the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is not by itself any sort of original concept. It is simply the concept of "correlation does not imply causation" but with a specific role-playing game wording. However, while it is very true that correlation does not imply causation, it is equally true that two correlated things could have a causal relationship. People try to use the Stormwind Fallacy as if it is saying that correlation implies the lack of a causal relationship, and that is fundamentally absurd.

But what I think is most telling is that fact that it comes up so much. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, but if you take a look at all the evidence people bring up, there sure as hell is a correlation. And while this does not necessitate a causal relationship, it likely (but not necessarily) does mean there is a relationship of some kind. Maybe instead of it being that a love of optimization causes a lack of role-playing skill it is the opposite. That people who lack role-playing ability are more inclined to optimize in order to get their fun. Or maybe it's that all the stories of such people come, not because they are correlated, but because both things viewed negatively by some, but only to an extent worth talking about when they exist together. Or maybe its something else completely.

But really, the fact is that the whole Stormwind Fallacy is really a silly thing, derived from actual logic, and is often brought up as an argument in and of itself, despite such an argument being fallacious by its very nature.

[Socratov]

The thing with the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is not by itself any sort of original concept. It is simply the concept of "correlation does not imply causation" but with a specific role-playing game wording. However, while it is very true that correlation does not imply causation, it is equally true that two correlated things could have a causal relationship. People try to use the Stormwind Fallacy as if it is saying that correlation implies the lack of a causal relationship, and that is fundamentally absurd.
No, people commit the Stormwind Fallacy (or in this case the Correlation =/= Cuasation fallacy) when they claim that there is a causal link between the ability to roleplay and a tendency to optimise above a certain degree

But what I think is most telling is that fact that it comes up so much. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, but if you take a look at all the evidence people bring up, there sure as hell is a correlation. To be fair I notice a similar effect like media portrayals of certain religious groups: as those stories get the most attentions it makes it look like it's the general situation while it might be an edge case... the only way to make sure it is so is to either inspect all gaming tables, or to draw a statistical sound sample and to note the effects of roleplaying and optimisation.
And while this does not necessitate a causal relationship, it likely (but not necessarily) does mean there is a relationship of some kind. Maybe instead of it being that a love of optimization causes a lack of role-playing skill it is the opposite. That people who lack role-playing ability are more inclined to optimize in order to get their fun. Or maybe it's that all the stories of such people come, not because they are correlated, but because both things viewed negatively by some, but only to an extent worth talking about when they exist together. Or maybe its something else completely.
it is also frequently accompanied by examples of people showing how not optimising they are, vs. the example of their 'munchkin' who likes to craft his character using multiclassing or feats. I find it oddly reminiscent of a period in the LGBT thread where something called the oppression olympics was going on which boiled down to "look how hard my life is, you've got it easy, not that you can do anything about it, but check your privilege and feel sorry for my sad situation." It was both jarring and hilarious on a meta level.

But really, the fact is that the whole Stormwind Fallacy is really a silly thing, derived from actual logic, and is often brought up as an argument in and of itself, despite such an argument being fallacious by its very nature.
Not quite, it's a subculture specific example of a logical fallacy that seems to stay relevant across DnD editions (and in some cases even across entire systems) because, frankly, the fallacious arguments it's supposed to expose keep being used over and over again. The fact that it has passed from serious point, through subculture meme into dead horse territory does not mean it's any less relevant. The Stormwind fallacy will stop being relevant when EITHER people will prove a causal relation between optimisation ability and roleplaying ability OR when people stop inferring or explicitly mentioning a causal relation between the ability to optimise and the ability to roleplay a character, purely based on anecdotal evidence.

[pwykersotz]

The Stormwind fallacy will stop being relevant when EITHER people will prove a causal relation between optimisation ability and roleplaying ability OR when people stop inferring or explicitly mentioning a causal relation between the ability to optimise and the ability to roleplay a character, purely based on anecdotal evidence.

This has been established above. The correlation is a difference in mindsets about playing the game that seem strange to those who don't have the same mindset. The optimizer doesn't have an inability to roleplay, they just have a methodology that someone who is not an optimizer doesn't expect and sometimes doesn't like/understand. And because most people know at least one person who plays the game for the mechanics alone, the two things get conflated.

But the real frustration of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is just terrible persuasion. The people who come and complain about optimizing are just going to walk away with an understanding that the people who cried fallacy were jerks and idiots, even if that's not the case, further dividing the player base. There are countless differences in approach to the game, and the Stormwind Fallacy indicates on its face that they are not mutually exclusive, even though they start that way and it takes real effort to merge the perspectives. I never see it help anyone come to an understanding.

If Stormwind was a short paper on why the confusion happens in a similar style to the original article on Bounded Accuracy, I would be in full support. But it just boils it down to a logical proof and strips out everything that I consider to be really important.

[Tanarii]

The Stormwind fallacy will stop being relevant when EITHER people will prove a causal relation between optimisation ability and roleplaying ability OR when people stop inferring or explicitly mentioning a causal relation between the ability to optimise and the ability to roleplay a character, purely based on anecdotal evidence.
This statement is exactly where the thin line between the Stormwind Fallacy and Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy lies.

The Stomwind Fallacy doesn't invalidate individual anecdotal experience that the person talking/writing has encountered one or many person(s) who's focus on personal build mechanics, or mechanics during play, was actively getting in the way of whatever they think of as Roleplaying. Certainly I've encountered it many times. Hell, especially when I was younger I've been that person from time to time, since often goes hand in hand with being a rules lawyer.

It just means that extending it to be a universal assumption isn't rational or called for. Especially since everyone views what Roleplaying really means differently in the first place. And I know it's not universally true, since I've also encountered many people who don't let their love of mechanics get in the way of what I personally think of as Roleplaying.

Edit: also obviously it also means reacting to personal encounters with people doing that, and arriving at the conclusion that they're universally inversely correlated/causal, thus rejecting optimization, is ridiculous.

[pwykersotz]

...stuff...

I had been hunting for this point and failed to find it properly. Well articulated.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Maybe the merits of the somewhat unfortunately named Stormwind Fallacy can only be fully understood along with the context of the mid-noughties Wizards board on which it was formulated and then endlessly defended against the onslaught of a thousand "role-players not roll-players". We had to fight for all of these liberties that you people (who probably weren't even born then) now take for granted and pish as unfashionable.

For me the fallacy is a simple truth whose value is measured by the opposition it engenders, kind of like constitutional freedom of speech. So along with the liberty to not entertain false generalizations you get the risk of some actual straw optimizer whose role-playing everyone genuinely hates getting to claim that at least they're not bad because they were optimizing. I'll eat that cost; it sounds better than eternal vigilance anyway.

#notalloptimizers

[tkuremento]

Guys, what about the feats though? Who cares about some fallacy, we talking feats. I just want some more sling related stuff like how the UA feats had a bunch for different weapons. Sure sling can benefit from any of the ranged feats but sling is often not a weapon of choice and it would be nice to make it even SLIGHTLY comparable, unless of course I am missing something. I LOVE me some Halfling slingers, just fyi.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Guys, what about the feats though? Who cares about some fallacy, we talking feats.

Topical drift fallacy. Just because a thread went off on a tangent doesn't mean that's not a lot more fun than the original topic which had probably run its course anyway.

[Socratov]

This has been established above. The correlation is a difference in mindsets about playing the game that seem strange to those who don't have the same mindset. The optimizer doesn't have an inability to roleplay, they just have a methodology that someone who is not an optimizer doesn't expect and sometimes doesn't like/understand. And because most people know at least one person who plays the game for the mechanics alone, the two things get conflated.
Possibly.

I mean, sure, it might not be the most helpful comment, but that might possibly be a reason why it keeps popping up. that said, however, I see the sentiment pop up more and more these days. Wether it's the natural curve of generational rejecting behaviour (each generation rejecting the notions of the previous and rebelling against that creating what is effectively a sinusoid movement of culture and counterculture) and we just seeing the rise (and inevitable peak) of the sentiment, or if it's a movement of trolling I don't know, but it ticks me off in the same way that every [person with X amount of skin pigment] is a [noun describing a degree of racism] or the mistaken causation between religion and worldwide catastrophy. It seems that these days more and more mass opinion are made into fact, even when they are just that: mass opinions.

It may just have been my naïvité that a game that while emotional, at least attracted a generally more intelligent or more adept at using their brain subset of humanity would be spared such behaviour, but I don't like where this is headed.

But the real frustration of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is just terrible persuasion. The people who come and complain about optimizing are just going to walk away with an understanding that the people who cried fallacy were jerks and idiots, even if that's not the case, further dividing the player base. There are countless differences in approach to the game, and the Stormwind Fallacy indicates on its face that they are not mutually exclusive, even though they start that way and it takes real effort to merge the perspectives. I never see it help anyone come to an understanding.and this is part 2 of I don't like about the current form of discourse, most notably on the internet, but present in day to day conversation as well: over the years it has somehow become accepted to keep proclaiming your opinion until you find your own echochamber after which you can revel in it and disregard any truthfinding. it's almost as if people think that if they find enough people to agree with them that their opinion magically becomes a fact. Like people only remember part 1 of Cindarella and disregard the second part of the movie: the moment when the spells on her pumpkin, mice etc. break and her dress becomes tatters again.


If Stormwind was a short paper on why the confusion happens in a similar style to the original article on Bounded Accuracy, I would be in full support. But it just boils it down to a logical proof and strips out everything that I consider to be really important.
Well, actually, the original came very close. What it lacked was statistical proof (but that's rather hard to get and would require quite some resources), but the original post has for now eluded my grasp. I did put up the RPG stack Exchange dump of it. You can clearly see how Tempest Stormwind came to his conclusion and what line of thinking got him there.

Though now I'm curious, what do you miss in the explanation of Tempest Stormwind that was taken away form the original correlation =/= causation fallacy?

This statement is exactly where the thin line between the Stormwind Fallacy and Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy lies.

The Stomwind Fallacy doesn't invalidate individual anecdotal experience that the person talking/writing has encountered one or many person(s) who's focus on personal build mechanics, or mechanics during play, was actively getting in the way of whatever they think of as Roleplaying. Certainly I've encountered it many times. Hell, especially when I was younger I've been that person from time to time, since often goes hand in hand with being a rules lawyer.

It just means that extending it to be a universal assumption isn't rational or called for. Especially since everyone views what Roleplaying really means differently in the first place. And I know it's not universally true, since I've also encountered many people who don't let their love of mechanics get in the way of what I personally think of as Roleplaying.

Edit: also obviously it also means reacting to personal encounters with people doing that, and arriving at the conclusion that they're universally inversely correlated/causal, thus rejecting optimization, is ridiculous.

The whole point is ridiculous, the fact that the Stormwind Fallacy is a thing is pretty ridiculous and the fact that it's actually needed to teach people the importance of the distinction between correlation and causation, as well as the blind acceptance of anecdotal evidence as universal truth is a downright bad joke.

the fact that it happens so often on a forum that frequently discusses the mechanical side of RPG's and for some editions even holds optimisation contests seems like outright irony.

P.S. Sorry for the rant, it's not specifically on these boards, but now seemed a good time as any to put it to text.

[Knaight]

Guys, what about the feats though? Who cares about some fallacy, we talking feats. I just want some more sling related stuff like how the UA feats had a bunch for different weapons. Sure sling can benefit from any of the ranged feats but sling is often not a weapon of choice and it would be nice to make it even SLIGHTLY comparable, unless of course I am missing something. I LOVE me some Halfling slingers, just fyi.

Some sling support would be nice to see, although at this point it's compensating for some pretty terrible weapon stats.

[Tanarii]

We had to fight for all of these liberties that you people (who probably weren't even born then) now take for granted and pish as unfashionable.
I removed a longer post because it's so off topic, but the "not born" part makes me laugh. :smallbiggrin: You forgot to include #getoffmylawn :smallwink:

I'd left the Wizards boards by the time Stormwind made his post. 3e and the WoTC boards were a haven for rules lawyers, optimizers, min-maxxers, roll players, both 'good' and 'bad' kinds (my judgement on which is which) ... and I'm not ashamed to count myself among those that likes mechanical rules, and is aware that at times I may focus on them to the exclusion of character development / in-character decision making. That's why I loved those boards (and the intense rules debates) so damn much.

[Capn Charlie]

I love the 5e style of feats, especially half and full feats. As for complaints about multiclassing and not getting ideal feat/asi allocation, that just proves the system is working as intended.

The biggest misconception from 5e is that you need 20 in your main attribute. It seems like everybody who swings a sword feels like they have to be literally the strongest a human can be or you suck, somehow. 10 is average, 16 is well above that, and easy to hit at character creation. Given the option of some raw and flavorless bonuses from ASIs, or options and flavor from feats, I would pick them almost every time. It also gives you something to pick up at later levels once you have the feats you really want.

Nah, it's a great system for what it does. Now, that being said, when I tinkered with that system, I depowered feats to the "half feat" level, only have 10 character class levels, and give characters an ASI AND a feat when they get them. But it runs pretty good out of the box, too.

[Aegis013]

Regarding the Stormwind fallacy, I read from another poster (who I don't remember the name) on the 3.5 boards a brilliant explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have good visual aids, but imagine if you will a scatter plot.

The X axis goes left "Doesn't like Drama" to right "Enjoys Drama"
The Y axis goes bottom "Doesn't like Optimization" to top "Enjoys Optimization"

You place the points randomly (scatter plot) and divide it into four quadrants. You have:



1
2


4
3


(My terrible visual aid)

Quadrant 1: Enjoys Optimization+Doesn't like Drama = Powergamers, people who don't care too much to roleplay, but they enjoy the game via making strong characters.
Quadrant 2: Enjoys Optimization+Enjoys Drama = Optimizers, people who are skilled at both and enjoy both.
Quadrant 3: Doesn't like Optimization+Enjoys Drama = Roleplayers, people who don't care about the mechanical side maybe to the point it's just in the way of roleplaying.
Quadrant 4: Doesn't like Optimization+Doesn't like Drama = These people don't play the games. They don't table top games.

Assuming we have an equal scatter of points, you have only 1/3rd of the gaming population who enjoy both drama and optimization, while 2/3rds of the gaming population enjoy only one of the two aspects.

That's the reason why people believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Because for every 1 Optimizer you also have 1 Powergamer and 1 Roleplayer. However, this doesn't invalidate the truthfulness of the Fallacy in question, it just attempts to explain why so many people believe it.

[Knaight]

Quadrant 1: Enjoys Optimization+Doesn't like Drama = Powergamers, people who don't care too much to roleplay, but they enjoy the game via making strong characters.
Quadrant 2: Enjoys Optimization+Enjoys Drama = Optimizers, people who are skilled at both and enjoy both.
Quadrant 3: Doesn't like Optimization+Enjoys Drama = Roleplayers, people who don't care about the mechanical side maybe to the point it's just in the way of roleplaying.
Quadrant 4: Doesn't like Optimization+Doesn't like Drama = These people don't play the games. They don't table top games.

Assuming we have an equal scatter of points, you have only 1/3rd of the gaming population who enjoy both drama and optimization, while 2/3rds of the gaming population enjoy only one of the two aspects.

That's the reason why people believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Because for every 1 Optimizer you also have 1 Powergamer and 1 Roleplayer. However, this doesn't invalidate the truthfulness of the Fallacy in question, it just attempts to explain why so many people believe it.

There are some major holes here. The first is more a quibble - drama and roleplaying are not synonymous, and treating them as if they are is going to cause major sorting errors. Then there's the assumption that there is an equal scatter of points, which I don't buy for a minute. We'll start with how quadrant 4 is vastly bigger than the other three combined if we're defining it as people who don't play the games. Then we'll move on to how even if we assume that there is no correlation between drama enjoyment and optimization enjoyment and that they are truly independent variables (which seems pretty unlikely) that doesn't mean that the quadrants end up the same size. Call P the number of people who enjoy optimization and R the proportion who are in for character roleplaying. Quadrant 1 would be P(1-R), Quadrant 2 would be PR, Quadrant 3 would be (1-P)R, and quadrant 4 would be (1-P)(1-R). Yes, if you assume that P and R are both 0.5 these all work out to the same thing. That's not a safe assumption though.

It's an elaborate model into which completely arbitrary numbers are fed to built up the 1:1:1 Optimizer:Powergamer:Roleplayer ratio and thus pull that 1:2 Optimizer:(Powergamer or Roleplayer) ratio out of nowhere. There's no rational basis here. Then we get back to the mess that is quadrant 4. I guarantee you that the proportion of people who dislike performative drama (storytelling, improvisational acting, etc.) times the proportion of people who don't like game optimization in its various forms (character optimization in videogames, fantasy football, competitive boardgaming) produces a vastly smaller number of people than those who don't play RPGs. Meanwhile you also get people who aren't in it for either case and yet do play RPGs - take hack and slash players who don't care about optimization, or people there mostly to socialize, or whatever else. Quadrant 4 is a mess, because the way it's defined goes from looking at a cross section of RPG players to treating RPGs as if they are the inevitable culmination of finding certain things fun while ignoring everything else about them.

[tkuremento]

Topical drift fallacy. Just because a thread went off on a tangent doesn't mean that's not a lot more fun than the original topic which had probably run its course anyway.

Why do you hate me, and feats? :|

[Aegis013]

-snip-

You can be pedantic about it all you want. It's just meant to be a relatively simple illustration to convey why there appears to be so much anecdotal evidence regarding the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Knaight]

You can be pedantic about it all you want. It's just meant to be a relatively simple illustration to convey why there appears to be so much anecdotal evidence regarding the Stormwind Fallacy.

The illustration only works if you make the bad assumptions though. It's fundamentally broken, and the only part of my criticism that even approaches pedantry is the semantics around drama and roleplaying. On top of that, basically the same argument can be made without bringing in a bunch of mathematical claims; if said claims are going to be brought then they should at least be given a cursory check to see that they make sense.

[jas61292]

Personally, I can't help but look at this topic from a purely logical sense. And the point I tried to make before is that, while Stormwind Fallacy is a real thing, it doesn't really mean that much. A fallacy, by itself, cannot be used to prove or disprove. When someone brings up examples of people who optimize do so at the expense of role-playing, and claim the optimization focus is at fault, all appealing to the Stormwind Fallacy is saying is that "in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you cannot prove that it is the optimization that causes the role-playing issues". What it does not say is is that the proposed statement is false.

That is because that is all that a fallacy is. It is a incorrect type of argument that cannot be used to prove a statement true. But, not being able to prove something is true is not the same thing as proving something is false. And, of course, claiming that an opposing argument used a fallacy and thus their position is false is in and of itself a fallacy.

In otherwords, the Stormwind Fallacy cannot prove or disprove anything by its very nature of being a fallacy.

Personally, I am of the opinion that yes, as people focus more and more on optimization, yes, their role-playing ability suffers. But I am under no illusions that I am able to prove this with anything more than anecdotal evidence (which to argue from would, of course, be a fallacy).

[Hrugner]

Personally, I am of the opinion that yes, as people focus more and more on optimization, yes, their role-playing ability suffers. But I am under no illusions that I am able to prove this with anything more than anecdotal evidence (which to argue from would, of course, be a fallacy).

I'm of the opposite opinion. I find that people without an understanding of the boundaries of power available will often have character concepts that aren't reflected mechanically, and the concept/ability mismatch will leave them playing a buffoon; an unwitting failure or fragile blowhard.

[Knaight]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I find that people without an understanding of the boundaries of power available will often have character concepts that aren't reflected mechanically, and the concept/ability mismatch will leave them playing a buffoon; an unwitting failure or fragile blowhard.

This depends on the system. This happened in 3.5, but 3.5 was laden with trap options. Put people who don't really care in a system that isn't designed to be opaque* and they'll work out just fine.

*Deliberately, if the designers are to be believed.

[Tanarii]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I find that people without an understanding of the boundaries of power available will often have character concepts that aren't reflected mechanically, and the concept/ability mismatch will leave them playing a buffoon; an unwitting failure or fragile blowhard.
Character concept has very little to do with Roleplaying, so your statement doesn't really make any sense from the perspective of the Stormwind fallacy. Nor does the the original post objecting to mechanical expression of character concept being countered by Roleplaying.

Unless somehow you guys are using some completely different idea of character concept from what I'm envisioning. "FFR Lancer" or "Cloud" or "Real world samurai" would be character concepts. "Doesn't like red m&ms" or "Has sworn to avenge the murderous merderers that killed my family" would be Roleplaying concepts.

Edit: In short, feats absolutely can have an impact on chacter concept. So can classes. So can skills. So can the entire mechanical system.

Edit2: and the system may have an effect on RP concepts too. In 5e it's defined, but open, and investing in it can get you Inspiration, a mechanical impact. In other games it can have a much greater impact, including flat limiting certain RP concepts.

[tkuremento]

Character concept has very little to do with Roleplaying, so your statement doesn't really make any sense from the perspective of the Stormwind fallacy. Nor does the the original post objecting to mechanical expression of character concept being countered by Roleplaying.

Unless somehow you guys are using some completely different idea of character concept from what I'm envisioning. "FFR Lancer" or "Cloud" or "Real world samurai" would be character concepts. "Doesn't like red m&ms" or "Has sworn to avenge the murderous merderers that killed my family" would be Roleplaying concepts.

Edit: In short, feats absolutely can have an impact on chacter concept. So can classes. So can skills. So can the entire mechanical system.

Edit2: and the system may have an effect on RP concepts too. In 5e it's defined, but open, and investing in it can get you Inspiration, a mechanical impact. In other games it can have a much greater impact, including flat limiting certain RP concepts.

What about things that can be both like a Deadeye Sniper, where you might have a bit of an arrogant "pffff, of course I can hit that" but then if you have 8 dex and don't invest in Sharpshooter it is a bit more difficult to try to roleplay something you aren't.

[Tanarii]

What about things that can be both like a Deadeye Sniper, where you might have a bit of an arrogant "pffff, of course I can hit that" but then if you have 8 dex and don't invest in Sharpshooter it is a bit more difficult to try to roleplay something you aren't.
You're conflating two concepts.
Character concept - extremely accurate missile weapon guy
RP concept - arrogantly confident in his abilities

The former depend on mechanics. The latter, in D&D, even in 5e, does not.

But in the context of this thread, even then, you've assumed a Sharpshooter is necessary for the concept. I don't know if Deadeye Sniper is from something or not ... but why doesn't Dex 16 + FS Archery meet the concept of an extremely accurate missile user? Sharpshooter doesn't seem necessary for the character concept, the mechanics already support it.

[tkuremento]

You're conflating two concepts.
Character concept - extremely accurate missile weapon guy
RP concept - arrogantly confident in his abilities

The former depend on mechanics. The latter, in D&D, even in 5e, does not.

But in the context of this thread, even then, you've assumed a Sharpshooter is necessary for the concept. I don't know if Deadeye Sniper is from something or not ... but why doesn't Dex 16 + FS Archery meet the concept of an extremely accurate missile user? Sharpshooter doesn't seem necessary for the character concept, the mechanics already support it.

I meant it as a sniper who can hit despite range. The first bullet point of Sharpshooter has "Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls." This makes it quite a bit easier to hit something.

Also my point is, how do you roleplay a character that is meant to be good at something for the roleplay to make sense without ACTUALLY being good at it? I mean, besides being an invalid who can't do the thing they claim to be good at. Some things can be roleplayed out entirely without stats but if you are roleplaying the guy who is good at X, then you probably want to mechanically be good at X assuming there are any mechanics for it. My earlier mention of my Halfling Bard chef, Gourmand feat helped because I could chef it up and still help with mechanics, my food being SO GOOD it actually allows people to regain more from resting and adv on Con saving throws.

[Tanarii]

Ah. In that case yes, you're trying to build something very specific, that the mechanics either can support or can't. In this case, if feats are allowed they can.



Also my point is, how do you roleplay a character that is meant to be good at something for the roleplay to make sense without ACTUALLY being good at it? Unless you build a character who isn't good at anything, they'll be good at something. So this question is kind of a non-sequitur.

Or are you still mixing up being arrogant about being good at something (RP concept), and the inherent 'being good at something' that is part of all character concepts? (Except possibly the character concept of 'bumbling idiot'.)

Edit: in other words, of course being good at something depends on mechanics. That still has nothing to do with RP concepts.


My earlier mention of my Halfling Bard chef, Gourmand feat helped because I could chef it up and still help with mechanics, my food being SO GOOD it actually allows people to regain more from resting and adv on Con saving throws.
And yet it would have also worked simply with proficiency in tools: cooking utensils and no feat at all.

(Unless your making this a specialized character concept again, ie beyond 'really good at cooking')

[tkuremento]

Ah. In that case yes, you're trying to build something very specific, that the mechanics either can support or can't. In this case, if feats are allowed they can.

Unless you build a character who isn't good at anything, they'll be good at something. So this question is kind of a non-sequitur.

Or are you still mixing up being arrogant about being good at something (RP concept), and the inherent 'being good at something' that is part of all character concepts? (Except possibly the character concept of 'bumbling idiot'.)

Edit: in other words, of course being good at something depends on mechanics. That still has nothing to do with RP concepts.


And yet it would have also worked simply with proficiency in tools: cooking utensils and no feat at all.

(Unless your making this a specialized character concept again, ie beyond 'really good at cooking')

The Halfling Bard chef would cook a meal and play a tune after whilst you enjoy the meal. His tool of choice was the Panjo, half frying pan and half banjo. But regardless, I'd have to get proficiency in a tool and have said tool, mechanics of the game. This is a game of mechanics, otherwise they wouldn't give us books with numbers and instead just give us nothing but lore. Given this is a game of mechanics, if you want to feel like an asset to the team then you probably want to be good at something.

If I can fit my RP with mechanics, then by all means I will. A dual grappler Lizardfolk who uses his bite sounds fun to play, I'd then probably make his RP that he was a gladiator in an arena where being a Lizardfolk he was considered the lowliest and given the broken equipment. He learned to not use it. Then I would optimize his Athletics and Str to be good at something that his backstory implies he is good at.

[Hrugner]

Character concept has very little to do with Roleplaying, so your statement doesn't really make any sense from the perspective of the Stormwind fallacy. Nor does the the original post objecting to mechanical expression of character concept being countered by Roleplaying.

Unless somehow you guys are using some completely different idea of character concept from what I'm envisioning. "FFR Lancer" or "Cloud" or "Real world samurai" would be character concepts. "Doesn't like red m&ms" or "Has sworn to avenge the murderous merderers that killed my family" would be Roleplaying concepts.

Edit: In short, feats absolutely can have an impact on chacter concept. So can classes. So can skills. So can the entire mechanical system.

Edit2: and the system may have an effect on RP concepts too. In 5e it's defined, but open, and investing in it can get you Inspiration, a mechanical impact. In other games it can have a much greater impact, including flat limiting certain RP concepts.

I don't separate "character concept" from "roleplaying concept", a character's self awareness is reflected in whether or not they behave in a manner that is reflected mechanically. If you are RPing a character who is brave and shrewd, but their wisdom is low and they aren't proficient in wisdom saves or insight, then your character isn't brave and shrewd, they're the comic relief chief inspector of a heist story. The guy who puts on a good face but falls apart constantly.

Feats aren't necessary, no part of the game is. Feats do provide mechanical support for increasingly specific ways of defining your character without thinking of them simply as good at something or bad at something. You could certainly get by with abilities that provided narrative support for your character, such as describing how you fail rather than whether or not you succeed, but that lacks the mechanical appeal and reliability required for a player to act without second guessing their character's abilities. A feat like skulker or actor is great at reinforcing a character's mechanics because it lets you wipe out or ignore some poor rolls, lucky is also great for this. Feats like great weapon master give you a bit of recklessness to your attacks in favor of power, but that mechanical change isn't reflected anywhere else in the feat making it narratively unimportant, that's not so good.

[MukkTB]

A feat that allows you to do something that you could not do before opens a new roleplay possibility. You can now roleplay as someone capable of X.

A feat that makes you more competent at something does not create as much space. However competence itself is an aspect of roleplay. A character who talks tough and then fails is comic relief. A character who has undeserved confidence is a fool.

When I design a character I start with a core idea about what kind of character I want to make. Generally I either find myself wanting to mimic popular culture, or I am excited by one of the game mechanics.
"I want to make a green/black style caster in the flavor of the MTG Golgari."

"There was a devastating magical disaster in this setting. What happened to this zone kind of reminds me of the fallout series. I'll think in terms of a wasteland wanderer."

"I want to make a paladin to protect the party with auras."

"I watched Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel the other day. It captured my imagination when Mr. Norell said, "...an English wizard on the battlefield..." Let's make a wizard who is a military man."

"I just watched the Hobbit movie with my buddies. Now we all want to make dwarfs."

Whatever the inspiration is, then I turn it into mechanics. I try to mechanically capture my idea as faithfully as possible. Then I look at the mechanics available and I try to flesh out who the person is, what they want, what their motivations are. I take some time to consider how I want to play the game, and if certain mechanics are preferable to others. I reconsider the mechanics I have selected in light of the new character development. I go back to consider what specific mechanics say about the character. I parse my options down to choices that are as simple as I can make them. I alternate between narrative considerations and mechanical considerations with each informing the other to some degree.

If I am successful I manage to create a character that feels good to play. It succeeds at whatever the initial goal was. And it develops its own voice and character, such that I can sit in character for the entire game feeling comfortable with the outcomes. The character has a life of its own, that demand particular outcomes and actions.

Sometimes I fail. Maybe the character falls flat mechanically and doesn't feel good to play. Other times I lose hold of the character and end up just playing a generic murder hobo. That's how things go.

[tkuremento]

"I just watched the Hobbit movie with my buddies. Now we all want to make dwarfs."



This but simply because Armok willed it so. He created the first anvil so that we may continue to make anvils. We dwarves seven set out with a wagon to start a mountainhome of our own. NO CATS ALLOWED.

[Tanarii]

I don't separate "character concept" from "roleplaying concept", a character's self awareness is reflected in whether or not they behave in a manner that is reflected mechanically. If you are RPing a character who is brave and shrewd, but their wisdom is low and they aren't proficient in wisdom saves or insight, then your character isn't brave and shrewd, they're the comic relief chief inspector of a heist story. The guy who puts on a good face but falls apart constantly.That's nice. But what a character can do, and what a character's motivations are, are two separate things.
In D&D the former is pretty well defined in terms of mechanics (albeit broadly in the case of skills), and mechanics absolutely affect possible concepts built around it.
In 5e D&D specifically, the latter is defined only in terms of Personality (Alignment, Personality Traits, Bond, Ideal, Flaw), and other than Alignment that's amazingly open ended. And the only mechanical affect is Inspiration.

It's an important distinction, because otherwise people start talking past each other. One side will talk about being limited in RP, and other people start shooting back things like if you need feats to RP, then you're bad at RP. Or some such. I'm not looking back for the specific quotes. :smallwink:


Feats aren't necessary, no part of the game is. Feats do provide mechanical support for increasingly specific ways of defining your character without thinking of them simply as good at something or bad at something.Well said. :smallbiggrin:

[bid]

This but simply because Armok willed it so. He created the first anvil so that we may continue to make anvils. We dwarves seven set out with a wagon to start a mountainhome of our own. NO CATS ALLOWED.
But then the Elves whined about our wooden beds, so I lowered the drawbridge on them.

[Knaight]

You're conflating two concepts.
Character concept - extremely accurate missile weapon guy
RP concept - arrogantly confident in his abilities

The former depend on mechanics. The latter, in D&D, even in 5e, does not.

It doesn't separate that cleanly. Sticking to your terminology*, there are two fairly distinct RP concepts here. One of them is of a character who is arrogantly confident in abilities that they actually have. They're good at things, they know they're good at things, they manage to be obnoxious about being good at things. The other is a character who is arrogantly confident in abilities they don't actually have. They talk a big game, and they appear to actually believe it, but they have nothing to back it up and their ineptitude tends to make the attitude shift from obnoxious to infuriating. Basically, picture the arrogant scientist archetype - they're obnoxious, they're a jerk, but they do know their science and generally freakishly well (as the literary archetype tends to come up in the context of works where science is a lot faster and less messy than in realist). Now picture that exact same attitude towards science, but on a politician who's knowledge of science is above average by politician standards but still thoroughly unimpressive. I'm sure there's somebody who can come to mind, and I don't even know which set of politicians you might be pulling from.

*I'd have gone with something like "Build" where you listed "Character concept", as what you call the RP concept is part of the character concept as I've seen that term used basically everywhere else.

[jas61292]

Going back to some logic, I think it is important to keep in mind that a statement being true does not imply that its inverse or converse is true. In other words, even if having a greater focus on optimization makes you a worse role-player, that does not mean a lack of focus on optimization makes you a better role-player. To counter argue the implication that optimization is bad for roleplaying with examples of people who are bad at both does nothing to actually counter the argument you are being presented with. There are many ways one can be bad at role-playing, and the existence of one does not counteract the existence of others.

Ultimately, I have no problem with optimization. I think a certain amount of it is a good thing. But my experience has shown me that people can only do so much, and the more one puts into optimization, the less they have left to put into role-playing, and vice versa.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't separate that cleanly. Sticking to your terminology*, there are two fairly distinct RP concepts here. One of them is of a character who is arrogantly confident in abilities that they actually have. They're good at things, they know they're good at things, they manage to be obnoxious about being good at things. The other is a character who is arrogantly confident in abilities they don't actually have. They talk a big game, and they appear to actually believe it, but they have nothing to back it up and their ineptitude tends to make the attitude shift from obnoxious to infuriating. Basically, picture the arrogant scientist archetype - they're obnoxious, they're a jerk, but they do know their science and generally freakishly well (as the literary archetype tends to come up in the context of works where science is a lot faster and less messy than in realist). Now picture that exact same attitude towards science, but on a politician who's knowledge of science is above average by politician standards but still thoroughly unimpressive. I'm sure there's somebody who can come to mind, and I don't even know which set of politicians you might be pulling from.Okay. But neither of those depend on WHAT it is that they're good at. They can be good at, or not good at, anything. The specifics of the what is a mechanical issue. The arrogance about being good at something (mistaken or not), the RP part, is unrelated to mechanics. At least in D&D, and overlooking Inspiration awards for a second since that doesn't affect what you choose to RP, just if you do it based on character motivations or not.


*I'd have gone with something like "Build" where you listed "Character concept", as what you call the RP concept is part of the character concept as I've seen that term used basically everywhere else.Okay, I'll call it build instead. I've almost exclusively seen "character concept" used to mean build. Although people since so many people often conflate build & RP into one thing when they really are talking about the things, that's unsurprising that they'd think they were the same thing, even when they're actually talking about builds, not character motivations. (And it's possible since they're focusing on the mechanics of it, I'm assuming they mean the build portion, even though they think they're talking about both.)

[Socratov]

Tanari, do you consider a character concept a fully separate part from its personality?

I'd consider a character concept a vector along two axes (axises?): the mechanical capabilities (represented along the build axis) and its personality (along the personality axis)

Because if you do, and keep the two separate you can't distinguish between arrogant but competent and arrogant and incompetent (like Knaight wrote above), purely on an RP basis. In this case the crunch has a very definite effect on the RP side of the concept. I mean, the RP side can range from Sherlock Holm/-+*es all the way down to TF2's Scout (or boffin to buffoon). The actual build will determine which is which.

Optimising in such a way that the character is capable will absolutely shift the concept more towards Sherlock. Optimising in such a way that the character is not entirely capable will shift the concept a lot more towards TF2 Scout.

Both similar, but ultimately different character concepts (one for serious drama and suspense, the other a great way to introduce some comedy in the party)

By the way, I'd consider a character to be the character concept vector projected along a 3rd axis: the luck axis (i.e. how it has grown and changed according to how lucky it has been and how the character responded to its luck). To use the above mentioned example: this could mean that Sherlock has gotten really unlucky and frustrated really putting lots of effort into proving his competence, only to be waylaid by his bad luck. On the other end it could mean that the TF2 Scout, despite his buffoonery has gotten very lucky, feeling ontly strengthened in his claims, maybe even justified.

[Shaofoo]

Tanari, do you consider a character concept a fully separate part from its personality?

I'd consider a character concept a vector along two axes (axises?): the mechanical capabilities (represented along the build axis) and its personality (along the personality axis)

Because if you do, and keep the two separate you can't distinguish between arrogant but competent and arrogant and incompetent (like Knaight wrote above), purely on an RP basis. In this case the crunch has a very definite effect on the RP side of the concept. I mean, the RP side can range from Sherlock Holm/-+*es all the way down to TF2's Scout (or boffin to buffoon). The actual build will determine which is which.

Optimising in such a way that the character is capable will absolutely shift the concept more towards Sherlock. Optimising in such a way that the character is not entirely capable will shift the concept a lot more towards TF2 Scout.

Crunch only matters outside the character or rather it only matters because of the degree of competency that you want the character to have. You can have a totally arrogant character who thinks he is king **** but can't even hit the broad side of a barn. Likewise you can have a character who thinks he isn't a good archer at all and have max Dex with archery feats and be able to do all that.

You can have the character be competent archer and have the world see that but how he sees himself is irrelevant to how he actually is.



By the way, I'd consider a character to be the character concept vector projected along a 3rd axis: the luck axis (i.e. how it has grown and changed according to how lucky it has been and how the character responded to its luck). To use the above mentioned example: this could mean that Sherlock has gotten really unlucky and frustrated really putting lots of effort into proving his competence, only to be waylaid by his bad luck. On the other end it could mean that the TF2 Scout, despite his buffoonery has gotten very lucky, feeling ontly strengthened in his claims, maybe even justified.

In D&D this is very hard to do because you can't just have the dice act the way that you want them to. Sure there is the lucky feat but you can't just will a certain outcome to happen bar DM intervention. I don't consider luck to play any sort of character development since you can't influence it, you can have dice roll results interpreted in a ton of ways that has nothing to do with "luck". It could work if you have complete control over the narrative but as a player you are at the mercy of the dice.

[Knaight]

Okay. But neither of those depend on WHAT it is that they're good at. They can be good at, or not good at, anything. The specifics of the what is a mechanical issue. The arrogance about being good at something (mistaken or not), the RP part, is unrelated to mechanics. At least in D&D, and overlooking Inspiration awards for a second since that doesn't affect what you choose to RP, just if you do it based on character motivations or not.
It doesn't matter at this super high level look, no. On the other hand, arrogant scientist is a meaningfully different concept than arrogant athlete which is a meaningfully different concept than arrogant warrior, etc. The talentless hack who thinks they're good at all these things also splits into several meaningfully different concepts.

This is before we get into the character implications of being good at things. Consider largely archetypal characters that have a notable out of archetype skill used for character definition. What that skill is matters, because it can be used to express things about a character. Say you've got a group of characters that are all combatants of various sorts, who as a profession beat people up. Giving a character like that a skill like gourmet cooking and emphasizing the artistic side of it and the life giving nature of food produces a different character than giving said character a skill in some death defying extreme sport, both are different than giving the character a skill of being a connoisseur of fine liquor. In an RPG, said difference would be mechanical - there's three different skills being used, all of which make for a different character.


Okay, I'll call it build instead. I've almost exclusively seen "character concept" used to mean build. Although people since so many people often conflate build & RP into one thing when they really are talking about the things, that's unsurprising that they'd think they were the same thing, even when they're actually talking about builds, not character motivations. (And it's possible since they're focusing on the mechanics of it, I'm assuming they mean the build portion, even though they think they're talking about both.)
The term "character concept" routinely gets used outside of RPG circles - you'll see writers talking about it, where the whole concept of a build is totally irrelevant. Within RPGs I'm more familiar with the non-D&D side, where there are a lot of games where the mechanics take character side stuff into effect (see: Aspects), and where character concepts are usually presented as the sort of thing you should come up with before making the rest of the character, including the mechanical bits*, where the personality is absolutely a part of that.

*Which again don't separate that cleanly from the role playing side as what a character can do is a significant part of who they are.

[tkuremento]

two axes (axises?)

Axes, pronounced AX-eez. Interestingly, axes is the only word in English that can be the plural of three different singular noun forms--ax, axe, and axis.

I feel like I've actually learned something from this thread, where as prior I had not.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't matter at this super high level look, no. On the other hand, arrogant scientist is a meaningfully different concept than arrogant athlete which is a meaningfully different concept than arrogant warrior, etc.How, exactly? That's three people who are arrogant about how good they are. They're just good at different things. Its one RP concept with 3 different builds. ie the same RP thing three times over.

It'll play differently mechanically, but RP-wise there's no difference, at least on the personality trait front. (I'm assuming 'arrogant that's I'm really good at what I do" is the character's Personality Trait.)


The talentless hack who thinks they're good at all these things also splits into several meaningfully different concepts.Again, that sounds like 1 RP concept, and 3 builds.


The term "character concept" routinely gets used outside of RPG circles - you'll see writers talking about it, where the whole concept of a build is totally irrelevant. Within RPGs I'm more familiar with the non-D&D side, where there are a lot of games where the mechanics take character side stuff into effect (see: Aspects), and where character concepts are usually presented as the sort of thing you should come up with before making the rest of the character, including the mechanical bits*, where the personality is absolutely a part of that.Okay, I'll start calling it all character concept: RP concept + build concept.

OTOH now I can see where someone would come from in saying you don't need Feats to do a character concept, you just need RP. Because if it's so damn undefined, it's unsurprising some people would think it means build, others RP only, yet others both plus maybe some other stuff, and some people get it all mixed up and be unable to separate very different parts of it.


*Which again don't separate that cleanly from the role playing side as what a character can do is a significant part of who they are.Are you really trying to claim that what people do is part of who they are? :smallconfused::smallbiggrin:

[Socratov]

Crunch only matters outside the character or rather it only matters because of the degree of competency that you want the character to have. You can have a totally arrogant character who thinks he is king **** but can't even hit the broad side of a barn. Likewise you can have a character who thinks he isn't a good archer at all and have max Dex with archery feats and be able to do all that.
I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make. sure you could play as someone with confidence issues but who is surprisingly quite competent. It's just that you can't just say that you are competent just because that is your idea without the crunch to back it up. Just like you can't say you are casting spells if you have only taken Champion Fighter levels. You can, however, create the match the competency of the concept by using the corresponding crunch to back it up. Stuff like: 'I want to be really great at sneaking through shadows" and then decide to make that happen through levels of rogue and the Skulker feat. It would be mindbogglingly mad to get 20 cha and expertise in persuasion and then have your concept be "I couldn't charm a toddler into smiling".

You can have the character be competent archer and have the world see that but how he sees himself is irrelevant to how he actually is.
which is a different concept altogether (and mostly a distinction in what I would call the personality part of the character concept vector

In D&D this is very hard to do because you can't just have the dice act the way that you want them to. Sure there is the lucky feat but you can't just will a certain outcome to happen bar DM intervention. I don't consider luck to play any sort of character development since you can't influence it, you can have dice roll results interpreted in a ton of ways that has nothing to do with "luck". It could work if you have complete control over the narrative but as a player you are at the mercy of the dice.
And I never said it was under your control. The luck axis is (like I said) dependant on how the dice fall. Much like how some people believe the 4th dimension is time: we move through it, but can't impact the rate at which we move through it or duration we move through it. And yet time is an important factor to us with many consequences. Since time is more fluid for characters in a narrative their journey through probability is more impactful and therefore my choice for a third vector axis for a character.

Axes, pronounced AX-eez. Interestingly, axes is the only word in English that can be the plural of three different singular noun forms--ax, axe, and axis.

I feel like I've actually learned something from this thread, where as prior I had not.
Well, see I thought it was like that, but I wasn't altogether sure, besides, it wouldn't be the first time that the English Language would pull a weird move. Like someone said before me: "The English language doesn't so much as use loan words; it draws other languages into a dark alley and mugs them after stabbing them in the liver."

[tkuremento]

Well, see I thought it was like that, but I wasn't altogether sure, besides, it wouldn't be the first time that the English Language would pull a weird move. Like someone said before me: "The English language doesn't so much as use loan words; it draws other languages into a dark alley and mugs them after stabbing them in the liver."

True, but I more so meant the fact that it is the only word where it is the plural of three different words or whatever I copied and pasted before ;D if only I took Keen Mind

[Knaight]

Are you really trying to claim that what people do is part of who they are? :smallconfused::smallbiggrin:

Yes, although I'd emphasize what they can do and have done more than what they're currently doing most of the time.

[Tanarii]

Yes, although I'd emphasize what they can do and have done more than what they're currently doing most of the time.
I forgot blue text :)

It's one of those interesting things that if you ask people to answer "who am I?" some people will answer by what they do (jobs, hobbies), some by their personality (funny, workaholic, contrarian), others by things like relationships (father, brother), and other by physical things (strong, tall, smart), etc etc.

Definitely the whole of a D&D character is the full combination of (at the minimum) their ability scores, gender, race, class, background, personality, and skill/tool set. Possibly other things on top of that.

[furby076]

And i'm very glad that that's the state of affairs

Why can't we have both? I mean, really, think about it. Some people like feats, some people dislike them. Some people like to optimize and character plan, others don't. Some like RP heavy, some puzzle heavy, and some combat heavy.

In the end, like every single other edition of D&D, players and DMs can choose for themselves. In 3.5/pathfinder, our DM allowed us to use whatever [official] product we wanted. If he found an issue with it he would tweak it. It was rare, and he tweaked core stuff (he found time stop to be too abusive). He would only use Core/SRD stuff for himself, and he would dominate us with encounters that were 3-4 CRs below us. The story was amazing, and the 8 year campaign had a pretty decent following on EN worlds story hour.

Your campaign will not be good or bad because WOTC came out with less or more material. I much preferred the splat books that had settings, new items, new abilities, new classes, etc. I personally flipped to the very end to see all that stuff. With the exception of when I played in highschool, I've never been in a campaign that used a module or a pre-made setting (except loosely DM saying we were in FR or Darksun). The one in HS is where a friend wanted to run THoughts of Darkness. So for us, the settings books, without rules, are utterly worthless. PUt it simply, if WOTC wants me to buy more books, they need to include what I was as well. Otherwise, they are losing potential $$$ from a lot of folks

[Cybren]

"Why can't we have both" was answered several times already.

[furby076]

It's not even just about balance. Having excess mechanical splats kills RPG editions, because it breaks the network externalities that make big name RPGs valuable.

I understand the first part, but not the second part of your statement. Maybe it's the vacation and all the scuba diving, but this is hard to understand. Having "excessive" books, that are optional, doesn't break a system. It allows the players that want the books to have options. It also generates additional revenue for the company.


If I want to play 5e and understand what's going on, all I need is the PhB. Everyone who has that can very easily play together, and so getting a PHB gives me a degree of access to this huge network of awesome gamers.

If I want to play 3.5 and understand what's going on, I probably need the PhB + all the books my fellow players are using. Else I'm gonna be like "Divine meta-whatsnow?" [/quote]

And here is the problem "If I want to play and understand what's going on".
Why is this a requirement to a good game? Isn't part of RPGs to come into a scenario where you have no idea what's going on, and then you figure it out? When your DM presents you with a mystery, do you demand to see his game notes? No, that's silly. So if someone whips out an Exalted, cloistered monk - why not just wait for the player to RP their character, and you gradually learn what their character is? How does not knowing their abilities, stats, restrictions, etc prevent you from playing and enjoying the game?


My main issue with the feats is that they are the one thing that was amazingly good or garbage. There isn't a sweet middle ground for story. Lucky is so amazing. Tavern brawler is not. Luckly,5e doesn't require optimization to have fun at least

I think that depends on the individual. Some people have more fun building a character and watching it grow to be that character. Some do not. Both are completely OK. I think the only time it goes bad is if someone makes a particularly strong (or weak) character, and the DM cannot handle it. That or if the player makes a super character that outshines everyone else. My two things in a game: Don't make something the DM can't handle. Don't make something that doesn't let other characters shine.


Do you think 5E is losing popularity due to "stagnation"? As far as I know it's doing just fine.

I think if D&D went out of business at 2nd edition, and no company ever picked it up again, people would still be playing D&D 2nd edition. The players who want it will still play it. The stagnation issue comes out with business revenue. WOTC needs to keep selling as much as possible to make as much money as possible. It's how they keep the bills paid, and shareholders (assuming it's public) happy.

So, having splat books of only "fluff" is about as bad as having splat books of only "crunch". A combination of both will attract both types of customers, and increase the incoming revenue. Each gaming group will determine, for themselves, what parts of the fluff they want to buy.


I don't have anything against published settings, but i have never met a dm willing to run one. That doesn't mean i think no one uses them, just that i dont think my experience is uncommon.

Crunch is something you can use in any campaign, setting specific material, is by definition not.

So i don't think it's a false equivocation to desire something that is actually accessible to me, vs something that is only available to someone tbat can finda group of like minded individuals.

You are correct. I've played with at least a dozen groups, and only once did anyone run a start to finish module (Thoughts of darkness). That was just my highschool gaming group, where one of the players bought it and wanted to run it. The DM wanted to take a break, so we hopped on that. Other then that, I've always played in custom games. Some of them have FR elements, one was Darksun (though everything was homebrewed but the setting). Heck, my current game is a realm that has all of the realms. Each realm is a continent. We are now in the FR realm, and there is a chance (later on) we could hop to other realms. It would be as simple as hoping on a boat (or teleport spell), or may never happen.


Oh it's perfectly possible to actively ignore portions of your player base while increasing sales. As long as you do what the majority wants.
Sure, but that would be simple. "Crunch" and "Fluff" are not mutually exclusive. The books can easily offer both, and the customers can opt to use some, all, or none of the material. I like to read the fluff, as a story, but I won't buy it unless there is crunch, since my DM will let me use that stuff in his game.



Releasing more Splats wouldn't expand the demographic, it would reduce it.
It means you have to buy more and more books to stay competitive.

This makes no sense. Maybe if this was an MMPORG, sure, but in a limited group of 4-6 players (presumably friends) - not even close.
First, you can share books (it's actually allowed). Second, your group doesn't have to use those books. Third, your DM can find simple ways of keeping your niche shining super bright.


New players want to hear this: "You'll love playing as a Paladin! You can use Divine Smite to deal radiant damage..."
New players don't want to hear this: "Nah, a basic paladin build is too weak. Buy the new Tome of War splat for the Rainbow Samurai subclass for Paladins, then multiclass with the Pact of the Shield Warlock using the Edgelord Patron. You'll need to buy Aztec Support for that."
1) new player can use one of the other players books, and 2) I think you shouldn't assume to know what new players want or don't want


Then even if the new player does that they might very well find that the Tome of War splatbook is banned at this table because it's too OP and the money that they spent on it is worthless.
Hm, if Tome of War is outlawed at this table, then who told the new player to buy the book and play the rainbow samurai subclass for paladins? Was it the new players 2nd group? Is this a new player with 2 groups, and he is going to play a paladin in both? Well, I guess I'm impressed he is jumping into 2 games, but also concerned he only wants to play paladins


Maybe WotC could stand to release some more crunch, but they have to be careful because in the long term they could end up reducing the appeal of DnD to new players instead of increasing it.
Having more crunch won't reduce the appeal to new players. New players may just say "wow, this is a robust game. So if i start it today, maybe it won't die out tomorrow"? Who knows. In all the years I've sat at a table with new players, we've always started them with the PHB (we loaned them our copy), and helped them start. They didn't care that someone else at the table had a character with 4 prestige classes, weird stuff from other splats...you know why? Because 1) they were focused on learning their character and how to RP, and 2) EVERYTHING was new and weird. Eventually, like everyone else, they branched out to do cool stuff on their own. Don't diss the new player...if he/she likes the game, then he/she will be curious enough to venture out.


People who think that feats were needed to define character aren't roleplaying. You dont need a mechanical benefit/detriment in order to build personality into your character. Feats existed for min maxing in pathfinder (or at least that is how they were used) and i am happy to see them gone. It doesnt take away an element of the game: it is a different game entirely and trying to shoehorn feats into it breaks that game.

I disagree with your RPing comment. Abilities and RPing are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. Many people do a pretty mean job at RPing who feel they need feats to define their character.

Feats existed to min max? Did Hasbro/WoTC make this announcement? I'm pretty sure feats, skills, prestige classes were made so players could have variety. It's what they tried to do towards the end of 2nd edition, but failed.




The Stormwind Fallacy was coined to counter "all people that optimize don't Roleplay" and in that regard it's totally solid and matches reality.

What is the Stormwind Fallacy?



The guy who is planning a build from levels 1-20 with "optimization" in mind and his head filled with numbers and abilities before he even knows his character's motivations, personality or even name isn't necessarily bad at the game. He might be able to really put his heart and soul into bringing the character to life, maybe they even have a fun, unique voice, and maybe the player could have even researched historical perspectives on their character archetype to "get it right".

I've been doing this since 3.0, and I am heavy RP. Heck, my current characters back story took about 3-4 hours to write. The DM had a couple tears come to his eyes from the story (and also laughed a few times). Before I wrote the story, I spent a lot of time on this forum on trying to figure out what's a good paladin build. Why? Cause I didn't want to play a paladin with a greatsword (did this in a previous campaign) just dealing tons of damage. I wanted a battle-field control type paladin. In my group, the warlock can do tons of damage. The ranger can play pin-cushion and mediator (in the group). The cleric (he's new, so other than healing i don't know what) can do something. We have a rogue, who is an investigator - he can pick the traps and do the smart things. We all have our niche, and we want to do it well.



The thing is, I've just never met this person. Or if I did, they didn't get a chance to shine their talents. As far as I'm aware, not a single person to transplant their Build into a Character has ever given me a moment of satisfaction in actual play. It doesn't mean it's universal truth that This Is Just How It Is, and it doesn't mean that other people can't be entertained by such a player. I just haven't been.

The thing is, I've never met a terrorist, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Oh, and nice to meet you :)



So in terms of feats and junk, and splatbooks, all that jazz...yeah, I genuinely believe that new mechanics can be fun. I like things that can help everyone at the table enjoy the game. I'm not going to say if you care about your capacity to be effective in the game that you're not fun or can't contribute to the roleplaying or any of that. I just sometimes get a red flag when people can't relax about the precision of their numbers.

I think the first part of your statement sums it up well. It's what will make each player (and DM) happy at the table. Some want to roll big dice, some want to do crowd control, some want to be the face, etc. One of the best the main role players at our table was so excited when he could roll 20d6 damage to area effect (Alienist wizard). He just loved every die roll. But he RP'd in every scene he was in and helped carry the game forward. My character was the frontline tank - doing some heavy single target damage - and with massive AC (pathfinder). His story revolved around restoring the silver flame, keeping his family safe, and finding the love of his life. Plus, also keeping the party from turning the other nations into our enemies. Nobody ever accused either of us of not being involved roleplayers

Point is, different strokes for different folks.

[furby076]

"Why can't we have both" was answered several times already.

Must have been buried in the logical fallacy arguments. Whenever I read/hear those arguments my eyes start to glaze over. Mainly, because most people word the logical fallacy they want to convey around one sentence or point, ignoring the rest of the OP statement and spirit of the response. It becomes painful to watch

[comk59]

Must have been buried in the logical fallacy arguments. Whenever I read/hear those arguments my eyes start to glaze over. Mainly, because most people word the logical fallacy they want to convey around one sentence or point, ignoring the rest of the OP statement and spirit of the response. It becomes painful to watch

While debates can get grating, actually reading through them is probably going to be better for comprehension than just skipping any discussion you find tedious. Otherwise you'll be behind on where the thread's gone and where it's going.

[LaserFace]

The thing is, I've never met a terrorist, but I'm pretty sure they exist.

Oh, and nice to meet you :)


I didn't say the idealized version of one style of player doesn't exist. I'm just saying I haven't encountered them and have sincere doubts about those who claim they are commonplace in the gaming community. I have the impression they are unicorns.

[Spellbreaker26]

This makes no sense. Maybe if this was an MMPORG, sure, but in a limited group of 4-6 players (presumably friends) - not even close.
First, you can share books (it's actually allowed). Second, your group doesn't have to use those books. Third, your DM can find simple ways of keeping your niche shining super bright.


1) new player can use one of the other players books, and 2) I think you shouldn't assume to know what new players want or don't want


Hm, if Tome of War is outlawed at this table, then who told the new player to buy the book and play the rainbow samurai subclass for paladins? Was it the new players 2nd group? Is this a new player with 2 groups, and he is going to play a paladin in both? Well, I guess I'm impressed he is jumping into 2 games, but also concerned he only wants to play paladins


Having more crunch won't reduce the appeal to new players. New players may just say "wow, this is a robust game. So if i start it today, maybe it won't die out tomorrow"? Who knows. In all the years I've sat at a table with new players, we've always started them with the PHB (we loaned them our copy), and helped them start. They didn't care that someone else at the table had a character with 4 prestige classes, weird stuff from other splats...you know why? Because 1) they were focused on learning their character and how to RP, and 2) EVERYTHING was new and weird. Eventually, like everyone else, they branched out to do cool stuff on their own. Don't diss the new player...if he/she likes the game, then he/she will be curious enough to venture out.


Right, breaking this down:

1. The first thing I look for for game advice is online. That's what brought me to this forum in the first place. While the preferences of my local group are going to be important, online is also vital - what if no one else has played a bard before? I'm going to have to look online.

2. Sharing books works in theory but not in practice. I can have a look while we're all together, but during that time we're going to be, you know, playing the game, and I can't ask to take a book home to look at because the other person needs it more than me (because they'll be using it). I don't have SCAG, so I have no idea what the bladesinger can do beyond the basics I've heard about. If I'm a new player, I might be put out if I think someone has an advantage because of monetary expenditure. Luckily I haven't heard any real balance complaints from SCAG or anywhere else, but the faster crunch comes out the less time there is for playtesting and the more chance there is of an OP option getting out.

3. By "not using" books you mean banning books. For new players, learning that the expensive sourcebooks might be useless based purely on the opinion of their gaming group (which they might be having trouble finding) is a real turn-off. And people do change gaming groups, or buy books thinking that they're kosher only to find out that they're banned.

4. We are both assuming what new players want. I am drawing on my knowledge of how quickly "new books" can turn into "pay to win" and how often that happens in video games and tabletop games. People find that very discouraging when that happens; if a player feels that they have to buy each new splatbook to keep up then it's only a matter of time before they get fed up, cut their losses and quit DnD. This is power creep, and it happens all the time.

5. I applaud you on being able to introduce people to the game so effectively. However, I think that on a large scale, new players who are just checking it out for themselves would easily find themselves overwhelmed by anything like 3.5's bevy of classes.

[Ninja-Radish]

Personally, I'm glad feat chains are a thing of the past. However, I agree that otherwise, feats were badly done in 5E. Making them optional and costing an ASI is a half assed way of doing things, completely terrible. Either integrate them all the way or get rid of them completely.

It's like the designers are the kid in the playground taunting the other kids "Ooooh look at my shiny new toy, you wanna play with it? WELL YOU CAN'T!!"

[Knaight]

Personally, I'm glad feat chains are a thing of the past. However, I agree that otherwise, feats were badly done in 5E. Making them optional and costing an ASI is a half assed way of doing things, completely terrible. Either integrate them all the way or get rid of them completely.

They're only nominally optional, in practice they tend to be used. As for costing an ASI, that does improve character variety a bit - suddenly you get a decision between a character who is extremely capable in broad categories (the ability scores) and one who specializes more.

[Ninja-Radish]

They're only nominally optional, in practice they tend to be used. As for costing an ASI, that does improve character variety a bit - suddenly you get a decision between a character who is extremely capable in broad categories (the ability scores) and one who specializes more.

I can see that perspective, but personally I don't think of feats as something that should be a half assed add on. A feat can make a character distinctive in a way nothing else can.

For example, every fighter can swing a sword, that's boring. But not every fighter is a whirling dervish of death with a polearm, you need Polearm Master for that. That makes the polearm guy stand out from the "I swing a sword" crowd. In my opinion, that's what feats can do for a character; they add to that character and make him/her different from the baseline. That's why I think it's a shame that they're integrated so poorly into 5E.

[tkuremento]

I can see that perspective, but personally I don't think of feats as something that should be a half assed add on. A feat can make a character distinctive in a way nothing else can.

For example, every fighter can swing a sword, that's boring. But not every fighter is a whirling dervish of death with a polearm, you need Polearm Master for that. That makes the polearm guy stand out from the "I swing a sword" crowd. In my opinion, that's what feats can do for a character; they add to that character and make him/her different from the baseline. That's why I think it's a shame that they're integrated so poorly into 5E.

Agreed, though I'm glad Fighter gets more ASI/Feats as per usual (7), and Rogue gets 6. I forget if anyone else gets more than 5. Personally I wish something had been tied to character level. It probably would be the ASI so that you get like 5 regardless of class. Of course this means they'd need to make more feats or separate some of the ones already made out into several others. And then they wouldn't be optional otherwise classes would just have these empty spots where nothing interesting might happen.

[Knaight]

I can see that perspective, but personally I don't think of feats as something that should be a half assed add on. A feat can make a character distinctive in a way nothing else can.

I'd argue they weren't half-assed, and that sharing space with an ASI is one of the things that has the potential to make feats more individually distinctive. Similarly they seem perfectly well integrated to me.

[2D8HP]

....Point is, different strokes for different folks.
I've probably said this before, but this "folk" is too slow of a learner for much more "crunch" yet, I still haven't absorbed SCAG and Volo's yet.

.....However, I think that on a large scale, new players who are just checking it out for themselves would easily find themselves overwhelmed by anything like 3.5's bevy of classes.I certainly would be!


Personally, I'm glad feat chains are a thing of the past. However, I agree that otherwise, feats were badly done in 5E. Making them optional and costing an ASI is a half assed way of doing things, completely terrible. Either integrate them all the way or get rid of them completely.

It's like the designers are the kid in the playground taunting the other kids "Ooooh look at my shiny new toy, you wanna play with it? WELL YOU CAN'T!!"That's pretty funny, but aren't Feats still an option?


They're only nominally optional, in practice they tend to be used. As for costing an ASI, that does improve character variety a bit - suddenly you get a decision between a character who is extremely capable in broad categories (the ability scores) and one who specializes more.

I actually like that going on "auto pilot", and staying single class instead of multi-classing, or raising ability scores instead of picking Feats is still a viable option, and 5e is balanced so thar you're not completely over shadowed by experienced optimizers.

[MeeposFire]

I can see that perspective, but personally I don't think of feats as something that should be a half assed add on. A feat can make a character distinctive in a way nothing else can.

For example, every fighter can swing a sword, that's boring. But not every fighter is a whirling dervish of death with a polearm, you need Polearm Master for that. That makes the polearm guy stand out from the "I swing a sword" crowd. In my opinion, that's what feats can do for a character; they add to that character and make him/her different from the baseline. That's why I think it's a shame that they're integrated so poorly into 5E.

You keep saying "half assed" and "poorly integrated" but honestly the mechanics show that they put a lot of thought into it and they fit in quite well (in terms of fitting in the rules not that you have to like them of course). What you really are saying is that you don't like how they were integrated and you think they thought wrong but that is not the same thing.

[Ninja-Radish]

You keep saying "half assed" and "poorly integrated" but honestly the mechanics show that they put a lot of thought into it and they fit in quite well (in terms of fitting in the rules not that you have to like them of course). What you really are saying is that you don't like how they were integrated and you think they thought wrong but that is not the same thing.

It's all a matter of different perspectives. To me, an optional rule means that it isn't integrated into the main rules of the core book. That makes it no different from any of the optional rules in the DMG, at least in my view.

[Spellbreaker26]

It's all a matter of different perspectives. To me, an optional rule means that it isn't integrated into the main rules of the core book. That makes it no different from any of the optional rules in the DMG, at least in my view.

It's probably the most used optional rule by a wide margin; it occupies a weird grey area between the truly optional rules like Tears of Exhaustion and the main rules.

I do think that feats should be full on non-optional, though. Without them martials fall behind casters, I think.

[Tanarii]

It's all a matter of different perspectives. To me, an optional rule means that it isn't integrated into the main rules of the core book. That makes it no different from any of the optional rules in the DMG, at least in my view.
Mine too.

And I like it that way.

[Knaight]

It's all a matter of different perspectives. To me, an optional rule means that it isn't integrated into the main rules of the core book. That makes it no different from any of the optional rules in the DMG, at least in my view.

On the other hand, this optional rule has how many pages dedicated to it? Yes, it's easily removed. So are spells, that doesn't mean they aren't thoroughly integrated into the game.

[Naanomi]

I wish they had defined featless games as the 'option' and defined feat use as the default. In fact, in practice this is how it is I think (no one is advertising their game as 'with feats!'), but it would cut out a lot of argument to have defined it this way from the start

[tkuremento]

It's probably the most used optional rule by a wide margin; it occupies a weird grey area between the truly optional rules like Tears of Exhaustion and the main rules.

I mean in that aspect I have to give it respect because it is like the main game is hotdogs and SURE a lot of people eat them with ketchup but some people just don't like ketchup. However I just wish they weren't ASI or Feat. But if not for that I don't see how they could make feats optional without having gaps in classes if ASI weren't replaced.

[MeeposFire]

I wish they had defined featless games as the 'option' and defined feat use as the default. In fact, in practice this is how it is I think (no one is advertising their game as 'with feats!'), but it would cut out a lot of argument to have defined it this way from the start

To be fair it is usually easier to add than it is to subtract. In addition no feats is the simpler to use option and that has been a major point in their design push. It makes sense from their perspective to do it that way.

[furby076]

Right, breaking this down:
1. The first thing I look for for game advice is online. That's what brought me to this forum in the first place. While the preferences of my local group are going to be important, online is also vital - what if no one else has played a bard before? I'm going to have to look online.
2. Sharing books works in theory but not in practice. I can have a look while we're all together, but during that time we're going to be, you know, playing the game, and I can't ask to take a book home to look at because the other person needs it more than me (because they'll be using it). I don't have SCAG, so I have no idea what the bladesinger can do beyond the basics I've heard about. If I'm a new player, I might be put out if I think someone has an advantage because of monetary expenditure. Luckily I haven't heard any real balance complaints from SCAG or anywhere else, but the faster crunch comes out the less time there is for playtesting and the more chance there is of an OP option getting out.
3. By "not using" books you mean banning books. For new players, learning that the expensive sourcebooks might be useless based purely on the opinion of their gaming group (which they might be having trouble finding) is a real turn-off. And people do change gaming groups, or buy books thinking that they're kosher only to find out that they're banned.
4. We are both assuming what new players want. I am drawing on my knowledge of how quickly "new books" can turn into "pay to win" and how often that happens in video games and tabletop games. People find that very discouraging when that happens; if a player feels that they have to buy each new splatbook to keep up then it's only a matter of time before they get fed up, cut their losses and quit DnD. This is power creep, and it happens all the time.
5. I applaud you on being able to introduce people to the game so effectively. However, I think that on a large scale, new players who are just checking it out for themselves would easily find themselves overwhelmed by anything like 3.5's bevy of classes.

1. I didn't say anything about getting advice online did i (don't think I did)? Clearly get advice online, and if you want to venture into the slow quicksand of online groups, give that a try too. I'd bet money that the majority of D&D games, that actually see long term play and success, are in person. When I started 5e, I got the phb, read it and then came here. The only thing that was hard was unlearning the things I knew before. Something a new player doesn't have to deal with.

2. Sorry, I find this one to be an excuse. If you spend ten minutes reading the book during game breaks, and find it that interesting, you can either buy it or borrow it. Your friend may need the book, but I'm extremely dubious about someone who says "yea bud, sorry, I'd let you borrow the book, but from now until our next ten sessions I have to study it on the daily so it can't let it leave my clutches for a week". I've played in games where we played 2x per month, 1 per month, and every few months (painful) - and never had an issue EVER of someone not letting me borrow their books. I've also never gotten upset that a book I owned in a previous campaign wasn't allowed in a different campaign. I'm an adult, and understand not everyone wants to allow everything. I've also bought books I knew the DM would not allow (BoED)

3. "banning books" at certain tables, sure. That's easily solvable: a) the player can ask in advance, b) the player can return the book if they forgot to ask in advance, c) just cause it's allowed in one game, and not allowed in another, will not hurt the gaming community. You're stretching here

4. THis statement is easily an assumption on your part of player behavior, and table activities. It's a niche scenario that simply doesn't apply as a whole. This isn't like Magic The Gathering, where buying a black lotus and all of the Moxs (I'm going back to the 90s now, when i last played) will determine if you have a killer deck...that is also valued at close to $1k. Books are shareable, and absolutely not required to be a power player. I was in an 8(ish) year long campaign. THe DM ONLY used core material for pathfinder. He let us use any official books. He would dominate us using encounters that were 3-4 CR lower than us. Heck, we were so decked out in magic, extra stats, abilities, etc that any reasonable player would call us munchkins. We were a WoW players wet dream...and his Core NPCs would rock us (no cheating). So, I disagree you need splat books to win, or that splat books give a dramatic advantage (some exceptions like rule breaking pun pun and hulking hurlers can check themselves at the door)

5. I think new players find higher level games daunting. Even if everyone is playing core, single class...once you start getting above 5th level things become complicated. The best way to intro a new player is to do so at low level. If that means having a couple of one-off sessions, and pausing the main campaign, then do so. But introduce a new player to a 10th level game, and they will get confused. I'll stick with my original comment, new players are focused on themselves and maybe a bit intimidated because everyone else knows what a 2d8+1d3+8 is, except when it's vs incorporeal, then add another d8...but they have no idea.


I've probably said this before, but this "folk" is too slow of a learner for much more "crunch" yet, I still haven't absorbed SCAG and Volo's yet.
I certainly would be!

And that's fair, but as my wifes best friend said "don't yuck my yum". If you don't like it, or don't want to bother learning about it, then don't play it. Nothing says you have to play new material just because others at your table are.

BTW, your signature is out of control

[tkuremento]

I've probably said this before, but this "folk" is too slow of a learner for much more "crunch" yet, I still haven't absorbed SCAG and Volo's yet.
I certainly would be!And that's fair, but as my wifes best friend said "don't yuck my yum". If you don't like it, or don't want to bother learning about it, then don't play it. Nothing says you have to play new material just because others at your table are.

I just want more options, I love options. I also want more weapons. I understand the notion of just pretend that longsword is a katana but, some people say no and if they say yes to a book that has katana in it it will be more likely I can then ACTUALLY have a katana. Also the more classes the better personally. I mean I understand using archetypes to do that is nice and all but I like when there is an entire class that does what I want better than oh, I'm fighter but I ALSO have like a few class abilities that give me sorta what I want.

And then we come back to feats, there are many things I'd love to do without being suboptimal. I'm not saying I need to be good at everything or even the best at any one thing, but I want to be able to make some builds of old in 5e. And if a class doesn't have something then a feat could.

[comk59]

I just want more options, I love options. I also want more weapons. I understand the notion of just pretend that longsword is a katana but, some people say no and if they say yes to a book that has katana in it it will be more likely I can then ACTUALLY have a katana. Also the more classes the better personally. I mean I understand using archetypes to do that is nice and all but I like when there is an entire class that does what I want better than oh, I'm fighter but I ALSO have like a few class abilities that give me sorta what I want.

And then we come back to feats, there are many things I'd love to do without being suboptimal. I'm not saying I need to be good at everything or even the best at any one thing, but I want to be able to make some builds of old in 5e. And if a class doesn't have something then a feat could.

Well, that depends, and some of that stuff, like a ton of weapons, don't really have any solid place mechanically in 5e.
Like a Katana for example, what would that be? If it was a romanticized Katana, I could see a Longsword with Finesse, but that's it. If you want to just add a trait to a different weapon, then you don't need a book to do that...

I also think that you are putting too little stock in archetypes. I mean yes, I wouldn't mind a psychic class at some point, and people have been asking for a warlord class since day 1, but that's pretty much it. I don't need a specific class for each character concept. In fact, I would absolutely abhor the idea of there being a class for every single character concept I wanted, we'd wind up with the 3.5 mess all over again.

Finally, for feats... isn't that the point? Isn't the point of a feat to choose between a straight power boost or a mechanical benefit? If you're having trouble deciding between an ASI and a Feat, that seems like how it should be.

[tkuremento]

Well, that depends, and some of that stuff, like a ton of weapons, don't really have any solid place mechanically in 5e.
Like a Katana for example, what would that be? If it was a romanticized Katana, I could see a Longsword with Finesse, but that's it. If you want to just add a trait to a different weapon, then you don't need a book to do that...

I also think that you are putting too little stock in archetypes. I mean yes, I wouldn't mind a psychic class at some point, and people have been asking for a warlord class since day 1, but that's pretty much it. I don't need a specific class for each character concept. In fact, I would absolutely abhor the idea of there being a class for every single character concept I wanted, we'd wind up with the 3.5 mess all over again.

Finally, for feats... isn't that the point? Isn't the point of a feat to choose between a straight power boost or a mechanical benefit? If you're having trouble deciding between an ASI and a Feat, that seems like how it should be.

I understand what you mean on that first point, but then why do Glaive and Halberd exist if they have the SAME EXACT STATS? I mean literally so; cost, weight, damage die, damage type, and properties. They also BOTH work with Polearm Master so that isn't a factor. And also as far as just adding finesse to the longsword, did my mentioning of just changing the name of a weapon irks some DMs I've dealt with? To them it is always a longsword and I can't call it a katana, do you honestly think they'd then let me finesse with it?

I am not asking for even 20 classes, but there are gaps where I think we could use another 3 classes at most. Psionics would be one of them, of course. However I don't even know if we will get more classes because everything is an archetype.

My problem isn't choosing between feats or ASI, my problem is not really wanting to get ASI but then suffering because of it but not wanting to give up my feats to do so. I just really like the concept of feats. I mean I am glad that chains aren't really a thing but I look at something like Pathfinder and there are so many choices and I LOVE IT. At the very least for 5e, though, I'd want maybe two more caster feats and SLINGER STUFF. I NEED me a slinger feat, or even just some sling ammunition types.

[Citan]

I can see that perspective, but personally I don't think of feats as something that should be a half assed add on. A feat can make a character distinctive in a way nothing else can.

For example, every fighter can swing a sword, that's boring. But not every fighter is a whirling dervish of death with a polearm, you need Polearm Master for that. That makes the polearm guy stand out from the "I swing a sword" crowd. In my opinion, that's what feats can do for a character; they add to that character and make him/her different from the baseline. That's why I think it's a shame that they're integrated so poorly into 5E.
It's really just your personal taste expressing here.
Calling the feats "half-assed" and "poorly integrated" is just deniying the whole lot of work that went into it.
If you are so good, why not put a candidacy to WoTC to be hired? ;)

My opinion is quite the opposite really: putting aside the two only feats that can put a bit of an unbalance (Sharpshooter / GWM) they managed to create feats that are both useful and flavorful. Without being necessary per se.

Sure, because they exist, people tend to always include them when thinking about builds, so then they feel we are depriving them of something if feats aren't allowed.
But a Fighter (to take the most emblematic example) without feats is not "lesser". It's as strong, albeit in a different way: namely, spending all ASI on stat bumps make him overall very resilient against spells, and that is a very strong benefit also. ;)

[Tanarii]

But a Fighter (to take the most emblematic example) without feats is not "lesser". It's as strong, albeit in a different way: namely, spending all ASI on stat bumps make him overall very resilient against spells, and that is a very strong benefit also. ;)Or it rounds out ability checks on a non-Str/Dex/Con ability score. Or, IMX, it raises your Str/Dex/Con that much earlier.

Assuming a 16/14 main stat/off stat to start, a normal no-feats character typically has 20/14 or 18/16 at level 8. A Fighter usually has 20/16 or 18/18.

I'm guessing that at level 14 is when you'd start to see the off-off-stat (ie tertiary) difference. I'll let you know if I ever have a player keep a PC alive that long. :smallamused:

[Cybren]

I wish they had defined featless games as the 'option' and defined feat use as the default. In fact, in practice this is how it is I think (no one is advertising their game as 'with feats!'), but it would cut out a lot of argument to have defined it this way from the start
This would have been a repudiation of their stated goals of making 5E simple and approachable, and probably many of their unstated goals.

[Syll]

This would have been a repudiation of their stated goals of making 5E simple and approachable, and probably many of their unstated goals.

Feats are no more complicated than Backgrounds are (less complicated imo).and far less so than archetypes.

[Knaight]

I understand what you mean on that first point, but then why do Glaive and Halberd exist if they have the SAME EXACT STATS? I mean literally so; cost, weight, damage die, damage type, and properties. They also BOTH work with Polearm Master so that isn't a factor. And also as far as just adding finesse to the longsword, did my mentioning of just changing the name of a weapon irks some DMs I've dealt with? To them it is always a longsword and I can't call it a katana, do you honestly think they'd then let me finesse with it?

It's a legacy thing more than anything, early D&D had a ludicrous number of polearms because Gygax personally had a thing for them. As for the extended weapon list, I'd argue that the best way to get a bunch of weapons in is a shorter list with broad categories (and maybe examples). If there were two entries on the list for swords, one of which was "sword" and the other was "two handed sword", you would have no issue playing someone with a katana if they existed in setting. It's a sword. Someone who wanted a sidesword, or a falchion, or a dao, or any number of particular swords would also be covered. Doing it weapon by weapon just produces a bloated list and makes it that much less likely that something not explicitly on the list will be included.

[Socratov]

It's a legacy thing more than anything, early D&D had a ludicrous number of polearms because Gygax personally had a thing for them. As for the extended weapon list, I'd argue that the best way to get a bunch of weapons in is a shorter list with broad categories (and maybe examples). If there were two entries on the list for swords, one of which was "sword" and the other was "two handed sword", you would have no issue playing someone with a katana if they existed in setting. It's a sword. Someone who wanted a sidesword, or a falchion, or a dao, or any number of particular swords would also be covered. Doing it weapon by weapon just produces a bloated list and makes it that much less likely that something not explicitly on the list will be included.

Well, you could always create weapon trees where the branching deciding the properties of weapons not unlike the classification of animals in biology.

[Syll]

If there were two entries on the list for swords, one of which was "sword" and the other was "two handed sword", you would have no issue playing someone with a katana if they existed in setting. It's a sword.

I think you would run in to a different problem then, as there would inevitably be heated arguments about whether a specific blade should count as a sword or a dagger

[tkuremento]

It's a legacy thing more than anything, early D&D had a ludicrous number of polearms because Gygax personally had a thing for them. As for the extended weapon list, I'd argue that the best way to get a bunch of weapons in is a shorter list with broad categories (and maybe examples). If there were two entries on the list for swords, one of which was "sword" and the other was "two handed sword", you would have no issue playing someone with a katana if they existed in setting. It's a sword. Someone who wanted a sidesword, or a falchion, or a dao, or any number of particular swords would also be covered. Doing it weapon by weapon just produces a bloated list and makes it that much less likely that something not explicitly on the list will be included.

Again, for the third time, the problem is that some DMs I've had seem to dislike the notion of even renaming a weapon to another weapon. I'm 100% sure that if it were just sword, they wouldn't let me rename it either. This problem supersedes the problem of Katana having finesse or a higher critical range.

[Knaight]

Again, for the third time, the problem is that some DMs I've had seem to dislike the notion of even renaming a weapon to another weapon. I'm 100% sure that if it were just sword, they wouldn't let me rename it either. This problem supersedes the problem of Katana having finesse or a higher critical range.

That's not renaming at that point - it's selecting something that is explicitly put up as a category. It's not taking one weapon and giving it the name of another weapon, it's picking which specific weapon is referred to by the category. It's like if the armor table just had "heavy armor" - taking a full set of head to toe mail in the context of "heavy armor" is a different case than re-fluffing full plate.


I think you would run in to a different problem then, as there would inevitably be heated arguments about whether a specific blade should count as a sword or a dagger
I could see this happening as a hypothetical, but I literally never have.

[Syll]

I could see this happening as a hypothetical, but I literally never have.

I watched an argument unfold about whether a kukri counted as a dagger or a short sword once; more or less what i was basing this on

[Tanarii]

I watched an argument unfold about whether a kukri counted as a dagger or a short sword once; more or less what i was basing this on
Can you throw it? If not, short sword. If so, dagger.

Is it usable by everyone? If so, simple dagger. If not martial shortsword.

Of course, when those two points clash it just highlights the problem. :smallbiggrin:

[MeeposFire]

Again, for the third time, the problem is that some DMs I've had seem to dislike the notion of even renaming a weapon to another weapon. I'm 100% sure that if it were just sword, they wouldn't let me rename it either. This problem supersedes the problem of Katana having finesse or a higher critical range.

Oddly if they went more generic with the weapons you would see that less generally speaking because it would be clear that they are being very broad in defining weapons. When you have more specific weapons then somebody can be more likely to say that they need this other weapon specified since other weapons are specified.

[Hrugner]

I posted a points buy system for 5e weapons design somewhere on here, I should fish it out. It solves this sort of problem well. Unfortunately I can't find it anywhere.