So wait... Feats OR attribute increase? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

DanyBallon

2017-08-16, 10:37 AM

Why was this change made (unless it was in 3.5 and earlier as I have no experience playing anything but 4e)? Why chose between the two? I don't understand why they did this.

First and foremost, Feats are optionals to the core system, and as far as I'm concern, it add an element of diversity to the game as player that level up their character, needs to decide if they want to invest in a feat that will give them new abilities, or in a stat increase that will allow them to be better overall with abilities related to that stat. Also, it should be noted that you don't need feats or maxed out stats to be effective in 5e, so choosing either is fine. Lastly not all feats are equals, if you like to optimize, you'll realize real fast that there are better feats than other for combat.

jas61292

2017-08-16, 10:39 AM

First off, feats are optional, so its a way to fit them in without them as greatly effecting game balance (a trade rather than a bonus). Secondly, stats are bounded, and as such not boosting a stat is not as harmful.

Millstone85

2017-08-16, 10:40 AM

Do note that some feats increase an ability score by 1.

So it is like they are half the price of other feats.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 11:20 AM

DanyBallon

2017-08-16, 11:26 AM

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 11:40 AM

I'd argue that it would be a tax, if you really needed to maxe out you main ability, but even if you have a 14 or a 16 in your main ability, you still are efficient, and unless you have an exact same class/race character in your group, you shouldn't feel outshined at your role.

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

Aett_Thorn

2017-08-16, 11:46 AM

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

Making a conscious choice isn't a punishment. You get to choose between maxing the stat OR getting a feat. I've never had a player at my table feel like this was a punishment. If the player would rather have the +2 to their most important stat, they can do that instead.

Specter

2017-08-16, 11:46 AM

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

Comparing stats in 3.5 and in 5e is oranges and apples.

1) Stats in general are less essential in 5e. If you're building a Ranger now all you need is DEX, CON and WIS, whereas in 5e you'd also need STR and INT (for skills). The only universal dump stat for non-CHA class was CHA, because even STR was necessary if you wanted to carry any kind of equipment.
2) Stats could be raised beyond 20 easily with common items, so even if you did boost your main stats to 20 (nigh impossible on standard array) you still needed items to be competitive. This is doubly true when it came to saves, because DCs of 30+ were common in high levels.
3) Bounded accuracy.

So even if you have a low-stat character in 5e (none above 16), chances are he wouldn't survive with them in 3.5.

smcmike

2017-08-16, 11:52 AM

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

By this logic, every choice is a punishment. If I take GWM, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Sentinel. If I take Warcaster, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Elementa Adept.

Pex

2017-08-16, 12:05 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 12:06 PM

By this logic, every choice is a punishment. If I take GWM, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Sentinel. If I take Warcaster, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Elementa Adept.

Like I said above, feats are generally more interesting than and considerably less useful than attribute increases. We can go back and forth on this all day and I'll never sway all of you. But I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

A metaphor: imagine I offered you the chance to be reborn as either beautiful but sickly or ugly but healthy. Any reasonable person would choose healthy, but would wonder why they were being punished for making the right choice. These things are not comparable, which is why it isn't an interesting choice.

LtPowers

2017-08-16, 12:09 PM

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

But it was designed that way (with feats as an optional feature of the game) in order to make the base game simpler. If you don't use feats, then ASIs become a relatively simple choice for players to make. Picking from several dozen feats was one of the hardest parts of creating a character in 3.x and 4e.

Powers &8^]

Moredhel24

2017-08-16, 12:14 PM

To parrot everyone else, feats are an optional rule. Probably made this way for simplicity for new players.

Cazero

2017-08-16, 12:22 PM

Since feats are now supposed to matter (as in not being stupid plusses tax), there are character concepts for whom none of the feats work. By forcing a choice between feat and ASI, those character are not too penalized for sticking to their concept.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 12:31 PM

Like I said, saying feats are optional is not an answer but a consequence of their design decisions. The next logical question is: okay, why did they make feats optional? So far as I know, that question has no official answer, just lots of unofficial speculation.

smcmike

2017-08-16, 12:31 PM

I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

Yeah, I get you. I don't know that "punish" is the right word, but the presence of an "optimal" path in a game will almost always cause these sort of problems. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to compare GWM with Actor.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-16, 12:39 PM

Why was this change made (unless it was in 3.5 and earlier as I have no experience playing anything but 4e)? Why chose between the two? I don't understand why they did this.

There wasn't a change made. 5e is a brand new edition, and there is no assumption of continuity between editions. Even if there was, 5e is supposedly a consensus amalgam of all the previous editions. So the fact that there were feats and regular attribute increases in 4e doesn't mean there ought to be some in 5e (after all, the game is supposed to also continue off of BECMI as much as 4e, and it had neither).

So the question isn't so much 'why they did this,' as, 'they did this, does it work?'

Like I said, saying feats are optional is not an answer but a consequence of their design decisions. The next logical question is: okay, why did they make feats optional? So far as I know, that question has no official answer, just lots of unofficial speculation.

You can say that about pretty much all of everything. the designers aren't answering 'why' questions much.

Unoriginal

2017-08-16, 02:44 PM

Like I said above, feats are generally more interesting than and considerably less useful than attribute increases. We can go back and forth on this all day and I'll never sway all of you. But I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

Yeah, I get you. I don't know that "punish" is the right word, but the presence of an "optimal" path in a game will almost always cause these sort of problems. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to compare GWM with Actor.

I've yet to see any demonstration that if you compare two characters who are the same in every way except that one took only ASI and the other took a feat, you see that the first is clearly outperforming the other in the tasks that are expected from an adventurer of their level and classes. Not even if it's like "it's clear A is outperforming B 6 times out of 10".

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 02:50 PM

I've yet to see any demonstration that if you compare two characters who are the same in every way except that one took only ASI and the other took a feat, you see that the first is clearly outperforming the other in the tasks that are expected from an adventurer of their level and classes. Not even if it's like "it's clear A is outperforming B 6 times out of 10".

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

CursedRhubarb

2017-08-16, 02:59 PM

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

Getting -1 on your main stat means you've only 8 or 9 points in your main stat. If that's the case, you have a lot more to worry about than weighing feat vs stat increases.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 03:07 PM

Getting -1 on your main stat means you've only 8 or 9 points in your main stat. If that's the case, you have a lot more to worry about than weighing feat vs stat increases.

-1 compared to if you maxed the attribute

Kryx

2017-08-16, 03:09 PM

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.
GWM, PAM, and SS provide about double the damage of +2 strength. The other benefits of 1 higher strength definitely don't outweigh the huge damage increase of those feats imo.

What alternative option do you use to provide ASIs and feats? I'd be curious to see other options.
Increase all ability scores by 1 at 5, 10,15, and 20, removing 2 ASIs, and turning the rest to feats would be interesting.

Aett_Thorn

2017-08-16, 03:22 PM

This is also assuming that you can't both max your main stat AND get a few feats along the way.

Starting with a standard array, so 15 in your main stat, and let's say that you choose a race with +2 to that stat, so you're at 17 to start. At level 4 you go up to 19, and at level 8 you go up to 20 (and +1 another stat). At level 12 you're free to choose a feat without worry about your main stat. This is even earlier for Fighters and Rogues. Or, you can be fine with that +4 instead of the +5 for a few levels, and get the feat early.

Having feats just opens up more options, without restricting you on being able to max out your main stat by end-game.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 03:24 PM

GWM, PAM, and SS provide about double the damage of +2 strength. The other benefits of 1 higher strength definitely don't outweigh the huge damage increase of those feats imo.

What alternative option do you use to provide ASIs and feats? I'd be curious to see other options.
Increase all ability scores by 1 at 5, 10,15, and 20, removing 2 ASIs, and turning the rest to feats would be interesting.

That's why I said most feats. Not all feats are equally useful. Take charger as an example of a feat that isn't worth jack.

I don't use alternatives anymore because the players get too confused and many don't bother learning the house rules. 5e is workable, if frustrating in many regards, and people generally know it by now. But every player has a limit to the house rules they will accept, so I keep mine to a minimum to be inclusive.

Unoriginal

2017-08-16, 03:26 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 03:32 PM

Have you seen in-play a character being significantly hindered for picking up a feat?

What you're really asking is have I seen a player miss an attack, miss out on a killing blow, fail to avoid an attack, fail a saving throw, or have an enemy beat their saving throw DC by one point. Yes. All the time.

Meanwhile, how often do the interesting feats Actor and Keen Mind come up? Not very.

Beelzebubba

2017-08-16, 03:34 PM

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

It's only punishment if you have a huge sense of entitlement. Balanced games mean 'I have to give up *this cool thing* to get *the other cool thing*.'

When the choices are agonizing, because this other thing over there is so tempting that you feel like you have to have it, but then this thing you have right now is just as good but has other limitations...

THAT IS A GOOD GAME.

If you feel like the only way you can be satisfied in life is to start at the top and then go upwards... then house rule it to be a candy store. Nobody will stop you.

Back 'in the day', when attribute increases were only via luck of the die roll - you might get one of a half dozen things that gave you a boost - we'd go the whole game without a stat increase. Except for those tables that felt 'punished' because they didn't have a +5 Longsword of Vorpal Holy Avenger Defending. What's old is what's new again.

The game is PERFECTLY BALANCED as is. We see threads all the time how it's hard to build it for high level characters because they're too powerful. And, you're whining because you're being 'punished' because you don't get steak *and* a blow job at every level, you have to choose between one or the other...

Yah, dude, no sympathy. Sorry.

suplee215

2017-08-16, 03:43 PM

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

I haven't seen the math but does a +1 matter so much when a d20 is what decides 99% of rolls? not to mention proficiency. if it's a +4 with GWM vs a +5 without gwm in str the gwm person is going to be more impressive if not more effective. sure, this is one of the powerful feats but also feats do things that can't really be accounted for by math. For example, Shield master. how do you calculate if a good chance at advantage for both you and others help as much as a +1. a lot of feats benefits are objective. However, also there will always be a "superior" option in a game with multiple choices. Only way to make everything equal is to build every option exactly the same. which is boring. 5e's attempt at this is to make it so the optimized way is not too much superior, or that the nonoptimized way isn't ineffective 100%. sure, there are some major differences but then it just comes to "do you want to build a character with feats that is 98% as good or a character without feats that are 'perfect'". either way is fine.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 03:43 PM

It's only punishment if you have a huge sense of entitlement.

I always love posts that start out with an insult. Sorry bud, but I'm not reading the rest of that.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-16, 03:53 PM

Meanwhile, how often do the interesting feats Actor and Keen Mind come up? Not very.

I'm not sure what this proves. Are there, particularly in a given campaign, some feats that are probably worth more than a +2 to one's primary attributes and others that are probably worth less than a +2 to one's primary attributes? Yes. What does that show?

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 04:02 PM

I'm not sure what this proves. Are there, particularly in a given campaign, some feats that are probably worth more than a +2 to one's primary attributes and others that are probably worth less than a +2 to one's primary attributes? Yes. What does that show?

That one should take only the feats that are worth more than +2, which limits not only selection, but also character variety. Hey look, another GWM barbarian. How about that, another PM fighter. And a sharpshooter ranger? What are the odds?

It's always the same. Cookie cutter characters. That's what this system has created.

smcmike

2017-08-16, 04:14 PM

It's always the same. Cookie cutter characters. That's what this system has created.

Every system creates cookie cutter characters, once you hit some level of experience with the system. That's, like, a general fact of life. If the system had 100 distinct and well-balanced classes and 100 well-balanced feats, you'd still end up saying "oh look, another Dread Ninja with Pole Vault Mastery" at some point.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 04:22 PM

Every system creates cookie cutter characters, once you hit some level of experience with the system. That's, like, a general fact of life. If the system had 100 distinct and well-balanced classes and 100 well-balanced feats, you'd still end up saying "oh look, another Dread Ninja with Pole Vault Mastery" at some point.

Except that there's quite a bit of variety among rogues since so many of them don't want to become SS crossbow experts. With their expertise and extra feat, rogues can be built in many ways. Similarly, there's a lot of variety among Bards, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. Those classes get to make a lot of meaningful choices. Notably, they're all generally SAD.

The feat situation, especially the imbalance between feats for melee characters, is what led to this situation. Characters can only afford a few feats, so they take the best ones and leave the rest. Honestly, it's a failing of WotC balancing more than anything.

Let me explain my gripe in such a way that clarifies my meaning. Feats are one of the biggest ways for characters, especially martials, to differentiate themselves. In 5e, feats are very limited compared to previous editions because you don't get as many and have to trade your stat increases for them. I very much dislike that. I also very much dislike that some feats are clearly superior. And WotC should have had no trouble figuring that out.

I'm not saying that 5e is terrible because of it. I'm saying this is an improvement opportunity for WotC with the next edition of D&D.

suplee215

2017-08-16, 04:28 PM

Let me explain my gripe in such a way that clarifies my meaning. Feats are one of the biggest ways for characters, especially martials, to differentiate themselves. In 5e, feats are very limited compared to previous editions because you don't get as many and have to trade your stat increases for them. I very much dislike that. I also very much dislike that some feats are clearly superior. And WotC should have had no trouble figuring that out.
edition of D&D.

But then the power gamer goes "now I only pick the 5 best options, instead of the 2 best options". Assuming the fighter was left out of your comparison on purpose, notice how that class gets the most feats. so they did what you are saying should be done with given access to more feats and are still being built extremely similiar.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-16, 04:33 PM

But then the power gamer goes "now I only pick the 5 best options, instead of the 2 best options". Assuming the fighter was left out of your comparison on purpose, notice how that class gets the most feats. so they did what you are saying should be done with given access to more feats and are still being built extremely similiar.

That assumes there are five options that are clearly the best choices. Ideally, there shouldn't even be one best when it comes to feats.

Arcangel4774

2017-08-16, 04:35 PM

What I think hasn't been brought up yet, is that feats work differently now on a scale of what they do. Once feats defined who you were, but now much of that has been wrapped into the subclasses.

Specter

2017-08-16, 04:39 PM

That one should take only the feats that are worth more than +2, which limits not only selection, but also character variety. Hey look, another GWM barbarian. How about that, another PM fighter. And a sharpshooter ranger? What are the odds?

It's always the same. Cookie cutter characters. That's what this system has created.

What this has to do with feats only is beyond me.
Oh look, another STR-boosting Barbarian. Shame on him.

KorvinStarmast

2017-08-16, 04:42 PM

You'll want that 18 by 8th level. Campaign circumstance will determine if 20 is needed at level 12 or could wait until level 16. Bounded Accuracy math can work with you too. I wish more people would appreciate this point.

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much. Hmm, since I build my characters with the team's success in mind, I think I'll disagree. our five person party included two martials: me, sword and board, and a barbarian. After a lot of thought, I went variant human and took shield mastery since I wanted us to survive low levels. (Our DM said it would be biased toward hard challenges, with deadly being not that uncommon). The Barb and I figured that the best defense is a good offense, but that if I could use that bonus action to knock some of our opponents down, the advantage on attack would make us both better. He debated on bear or wolf and went bear. I chose to go dueling, but was sorely tempted to take defensive for the +1 AC. Our other two were a druid an a rogue assassin. A monk joined us at third level, shadow. (Kind of neat to have two scouts ...) And the campaign ended at level 6, darn it, since real life robbed us of the DM (and my wife was probably going to pull the plug on me anyway ...) I used my ASI at 4 to boost strength. At 6, I boosted Con.
GWM, PAM, and SS provide about double the damage of +2 strength. The other benefits of 1 higher strength definitely don't outweigh the huge damage increase of those feats Imo My ranger with sharpshooter certainly likes SS.

Take charger as an example of a feat that isn't worth jack. It's one that might could use a tweak: what do you think would improve it?

smcmike

2017-08-16, 04:51 PM

That assumes there are five options that are clearly the best choices. Ideally, there shouldn't even be one best when it comes to feats.

I dunno. There's nothing wrong with a particular feat being the best for a particular character. If you want to wield a greataxe and deal massive damage in melee, there is only really one feat for you, and that's fine and good.

There are other melee builds that don't do quite as much damage, but add survivability, or control, or other benefits. A sword and board eldritch knight with defense fighting style, heavy armor mastery and warcaster is not optimal as a damage dealer, but he sounds pretty fun to me.

alchahest

2017-08-16, 04:52 PM

a lot of poo-pooing the Actor feat but I've had a lot of great use for it with my goliath bard.

I guess... if your build works to your concept, you will probably be happy? so working as intended?

suplee215

2017-08-16, 05:23 PM

That assumes there are five options that are clearly the best choices. Ideally, there shouldn't even be one best when it comes to feats.
I dare you to build a system with 20 different but equal options. It's not possible, especially not different games and dm styles will help or hurt different feats. someone looking for the "best options" will always find a way to see them

Tanarii

2017-08-16, 05:38 PM

You'll want that 18 by 8th level. Campaign circumstance will determine if 20 is needed at level 12 or could wait until level 16. Bounded Accuracy math can work with you too.I always put the numbers at 16 by 8th, 18 by 16th level, and 20 optional.

Edit: I'm basing 16 by 8th on lots of campaign experience with characters in Tier 1 and 2. Based on that, I can't see requiring another +1 in the next 4 levels, as opposed to 8. OTOH there might be some sudden scaling needed in primary attack, since you're hitting a new Tier at level 11. So it might be 16 by 8th, 18 by 12th, and 20 at 19th?

Edit2: I just took a quick look at the system math, based on monster AC by CR. If you assume the characters will mostly fight CR-3 creatures, and should need an 8 or higher to hit, then they should be looking at +3 Mod until around level 10 (between 8 and 12), and +4 mod from level 11-20. Approximately. So +2 is a little low at low levels, and +5 is a little extra bonus at high levels.

Dudu

2017-08-16, 05:55 PM

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.
Couldn't disagree more.

Compare a cleric with 18 Wis with a cleric that has 16 Wis but also 14 or 16 in Con and is proficient in it's saves.
Oh yeah, the 18 Wis cleric can prepare one more spell and the spells that demand DC are 1 DC highter, and his cures cure one more HP.
But if they get hit they are way more likely to drop their concentration spell, and that's a immense difference. Let's not even count the fact that the Resilient cleric is more likely to have more HP.

In many ways, it's a worthy tradeoff. As a cleric, it's likely that you still want to get 20 in Wis, though, sooner, rather than later. Warcaster is also very good.

And think about a ranged character, which is hurting the most, the 18 Dex ranger or the 16 Dex ranger with Sharpshooter. If you think the 18 Dex one is being a better archer you're being delusional.

Feats add immense depth, and some power. Magic Initiate is a good example. Try giving Shillelagh and Goodberries to a life cleric, or simply Find Familiar to any character possible. Shield and Absorb Elements, or Eldritch Blast to the bard.

Great Weapon mastery does to the melee what sharpshooter does to the ranger. And if you think a 20 Str fighter is all that great know that I'd rather have the staple polearm master in my team. 16 Str, yeah, but he might end up doing equivalent damage while also protecting his teammates much more efficiently.

What you could do, is delay feats a bit, since I feel stats increase make less impact the more levels you have. +1 to the stat when you have prof +2 is certainly not the same as a +1 when you boast +4 from proficiency plus +1 from maybe a magic item. Still, in cleric's case, you might want to grab Resilient Con before maxing Wisdom. Having proficiency in Con for a caster, let alone one who is encouraged to stay in melee, makes too much difference.

Pex

2017-08-16, 06:18 PM

I always put the numbers at 16 by 8th, 18 by 16th level, and 20 optional.

Edit: I'm basing 16 by 8th on lots of campaign experience with characters in Tier 1 and 2. Based on that, I can't see requiring another +1 in the next 4 levels, as opposed to 8. OTOH there might be some sudden scaling needed in primary attack, since you're hitting a new Tier at level 11. So it might be 16 by 8th, 18 by 12th, and 20 at 19th?

Edit2: I just took a quick look at the system math, based on monster AC by CR. If you assume the characters will mostly fight CR-3 creatures, and should need an 8 or higher to hit, then they should be looking at +3 Mod until around level 10 (between 8 and 12), and +4 mod from level 11-20. Approximately. So +2 is a little low at low levels, and +5 is a little extra bonus at high levels.

Sometimes I think you disagree with me just for the joy of disagreeing with me.
:smallwink:

Chugger

2017-08-16, 06:26 PM

Sometimes I think you disagree with me just for the joy of disagreeing with me.
:smallwink:

Pex there could be some of that happening here! :smallwink:

Makes me think of:
"No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

Tanarii

2017-08-16, 06:28 PM

Sometimes I think you disagree with me just for the joy of disagreeing with me.
:smallwink:
I'll be honest. The post started off that way. :smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

But then I went and looked at the numbers, and it really does look like the assumption of the game math (depending on assumptions about CR) is either:
+3 for first half of game, +4 for second
or
+3 through 7, +4 levels 8-18, and +5 at 19th.

Edit: BTW, if you notice, I demonstrated to myself that I'm wrong on +2 through 8th being fine / assumed by the system math. :smallwink: It seems it's a tad low.

GlenSmash!

2017-08-16, 06:32 PM

If I were min-maxing I'd take a feat like Lucky over an ASI right off the get go. A +1 that may very well not make the difference is not nearly as useful to me as 3 extra rolls in a pinch that will almost always be needed. From there I'd take Mobile on a just about any melee character. Hitting and moving away to make melee monsters have to dash to get to me means they are not using a full multiattack. That reduction in damage is better to me that +1. Then I'd do GWM on a two-hander because +10 is better than +1. Brawler on a grappler, because double proficiency bonus on grapples is better than an additional +1. Shield Master on a Shield Bearer, to grant advantage to myself and Melee buddies. Advantage is equivalent to a +5 which is bigger than +1.

I don't think I'd even consider an ASI until my 4th feat on a melee character, but at that point I might want PM or Sentinel, because one whole more attack is likely better than a +1.

Specter

2017-08-16, 06:40 PM

Yeah, the whole 'stats are better than feats' is long dead.

- GWM and SS are flat out better mathematically than stat boosts. This is doubly true for STR, which governs only one skill, a bad save and carrying capacity.
- If you frequently cast concentration spells, Resilient (CON) is better than a stat boost (without even counting other saves like for necromancy or cold).
- If you already have CON save proficiency, Tough is better than +2 to CON.
- Some feats let you do stuff that you couldn't before (like War Caster and full-hands casting), in which case they're invaluable.

These examples should be plenty.

AvatarVecna

2017-08-16, 06:57 PM

My understanding is that the reason feats were made an optional sub-system, and that you had to choose between ASIs and feats, was to have a starting baseline for where feats should be balanced: if you'd never contemplate taking an ASI in place of Feat X, Feat X is overpowered (see: GWM, Sharpshooter, War Caster, etc), and if you'd never contemplate taking Feat Y over an ASI, then Feat Y is underpowered (Charger, Keen Mind, Weapon Master, etc). Obviously, given the above examples, they didn't necessarily do a great job of balancing feats against ASIs, but it seems clear to me that this was the intent of the decision, and I'd bet internet cookies on there being official word from a designer that this was the intention.

greenstone

2017-08-16, 07:39 PM

Meanwhile, how often do the interesting feats Actor and Keen Mind come up? Not very.

In my experience, often (at least every couple of sessions, often multiple times a session). Are your games dividing time equally between all three pillars?

Random Sanity

2017-08-16, 07:48 PM

No matter what you use as your target point for balance and no matter how much tweaking you do, some character options are just going to come out significantly stronger than others. That's a universal fact of game design - true balance is impossible. Heck, chess gives both players identical resources, and white's player STILL has a mechanical edge.

alchahest

2017-08-16, 07:54 PM

True - Actor Feat is powerful enough to allow a lot of social uses. GWM does not offer much in the way of social power.

SharkForce

2017-08-17, 02:03 AM

in an ideal game, all the options would indeed be balanced and nothing would need to be sacrificed for that.

but, since perfect balance would probably require that the game be designed according to the dictates of obscenely complex formulas devised by extremely highly educated and experienced mathematicians after tens of thousands of hours of closely observed and catalogued play (for each iteration, you'd need to test over and over) and would probably need a supercomputer to run the game, and none of the players would probably really be able to understand why skill A costs the same to get to 5,629.34 as it would take to get skill B to 5,615.18 (even the supposed designers who really have only been designing the formulas that design the game), after decades of math-dictated design...

well, i'm prepared to settle for "close enough". there are a few flaws, certainly. i would never say that 5e is perfectly balanced. but i would certainly say most parts of it are "close enough". there's some stuff that irritates me enough to want to fix it (a handful of feats more or less warp most combat to specific fighting styles for optimizers, a few spells are just really garbage, and a few class/subclasses are not as well designed as i might wish them to be), but for the most part, 5 is "close enough", and that is many times more practical than perfect. there is actually a game now instead of decades or centuries from now, and while i might wish for more new content faster, i'm certainly happy that new ideas can be added more quickly than if every new ability needed hundreds of hours of playtesting to determine it's specific value. if you think the wait time on revised ranger feels bad, just imagine if they had to quantify every single possible variable, determine proper coefficients, turn it all into a formula, and then merge that monstrosity into all the other formulas they've built over the years...

no thank you. i'll take my imperfect but pretty good game, make a few minor tweaks to the things that irritate me most, and be happy.

djreynolds

2017-08-17, 03:45 AM

Its unfortunate that game revolves around combat so much and that most experience gained is tied to this, hence Mr. Mearls' latest idea.

Its unfortunate that most monsters have higher HP and less AC, but who wants to keep rolling and missing during gaming.

Here is some of the questions I asked myself when reading this thread

Are GWM, SS, and PAM worth more than an ASI's +2 to strength or dexterity?

Yes and no, if you choose GWM does it always force you to use a heavy weapon, no. In fact, as long as you kill or crit with any melee weapon you do get a bonus action attack.

If you chose SS, you still have plenty of finesse weapons available to you when ranged attacks are not the best option

PAM is really only limiting if the DM doesn't provide you with something magical later on. But the reality is versatile weapons are probably more readily available and made than polearms are, hence more magical longswords and spears and staffs, etc. So magical polearms should be tougher to buy or find

I think with multiple attacks and the fact that you can add you ability modifier to damage and to hit, maxing out your main stat is always an excellent choice. Especially when you are unsure of what you really want to do.

For archers, SS is a good option just for its other perks. So I might value this over a dex bump

For GWM types, remember that second perk works on kills and crits.

Are these feats required for certain classes to stay relevant at higher levels?

Again, most monsters have more HP and AC, and cantrips scale in accordance with a fighter's extra attacks. Yes. I have played a fighter without feats... so having GWM, SS, PAM, and even shield master are important

And if they are, why not just make them class features?

Seriously, why not? Then players might be more apt to use other feats... like actor or keen mind or linguist. I mean what barbarian isn't recklessly attacking without GWM, its like PB&J. Why not just make it a class feature then and be done with it?

Are there feats that you give out just because of the campaign setting?

Yes. Why not? I might give a rogue of a certain level dungeon delver, or award a ranger observant after so many forays into the wilderness.

Beelzebubba

2017-08-17, 04:16 AM

That assumes there are five options that are clearly the best choices. Ideally, there shouldn't even be one best when it comes to feats.

Yeah, no.

My Druid is having the hardest time choosing between Mobile, Spell Sniper, Magic Initiate, and Alert, because each one is 'signature' and will hugely influence how I play.

Magic Initiate? Find Familiar makes my touch spells range 30' and I have an always-on mobile scout. Give me Message, and I'm the all-knowing distributor of intel. I stay in the center of the party and distribute info. Wizard-ish Druid.

Mobile? Longstrider + Pass Without Trace mean stealthy and fast as hell while having access to all my spells. I can afford to get myself into and out of hairy situations easily. I don't hang back, I jump into the thick of it. Rogue-ish / Ranger-ish Druid.

One feat choice, significantly different playing style.

--

Again, you keep wanting something the game already has, and it's better about it than most editions of D&D have ever been.

Beelzebubba

2017-08-17, 05:20 AM

I always love posts that start out with an insult. Sorry bud, but I'm not reading the rest of that.

Yeah, well, fair, it was a rant. And a bit too personal, reading it now.

But reading your posts you really do think it's all so easy. WoTC is either inept or lazy.

This is the third 'complete overhaul' of the system in a row. The previous two failed spectacularly in different ways. This is the best-balanced D&D we've ever had*, but your posts are mostly about what they should have, why didn't they, etcetera.

What you want will literally never happen in a complex system using asymmetric balance. Not possible. Fix one thing and you create at least two other imbalances in the process. Entirely new strategies pop up that exploit formerly second-best options that are now the new 'local maximums'.

It's why Starcraft and DOTA have constantly shifting metagames based on patches, Street Fighter always had tiers that shake out between versions, and even Chess has 'solved' strategies based on the asymmetry of one player having to go first. Literal Rock/Paper/Scissors is the only thing that works, because it's asymmetrical and everyone acts simultaneously.

There will always be 2 optimal choices at most.

You really should get used to that, or start proving what they should have done by putting your own home brew that does it so much better.

*(4E was much better balanced, but did so by becoming very unlike D&D in the process, for better or for worse.)

Theodoxus

2017-08-17, 05:40 AM

Literal Rock/Paper/Scissors is the only thing that works, because it's asymmetrical and everyone acts simultaneously.

I've been meaning to do this in my D&D games, but haven't gotten around to implementing it. Basically, all hit point damage is noted, but not applied, until the end of the round, in an effort to simulate simultaneous action - after all, rounds are divided by initiative for ease of play, not because player A literally shoots first while monster 1 patiently waits to get hit, and a few microseconds later rushes forward to attack...

This would do a couple things. Combat becomes more deadly, as you don't know the status of what you're attacking is, until the end of the round and a reckoning occurs - so it's definitely possible that players will be knocked out and hit multiple times for failed death saves and dead before they even know it (which puts onus on the players to be more tactically minded and combat healing will be a necessity). And focused fire is less optimal, since overkill on monsters doesn't help.

It would require a bit more bookkeeping on the DMs part - but a simple spreadsheet would do the trick.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-17, 06:44 AM

All in all, I agree that feats > ASIs unless you are trailing the game-math with respect to your primary stat. The exception might be if you can use one ASI to round two odd useful stats up to even #s (ex. my lvl2 fighter has a 19 str, 15 con, and I am seriously considering taking +1str/+1 con at 4th and then feats from there on out).

and I'd bet internet cookies on there being official word from a designer that this was the intention.

Agree with all parts except the highlighted part.

And if they are, why not just make them class features?

Seriously, why not? Then players might be more apt to use other feats... like actor or keen mind or linguist. I mean what barbarian isn't recklessly attacking without GWM, its like PB&J. Why not just make it a class feature then and be done with it?

There's some logic to that. Certainly the old 'Feats Should be Nice, but not Required' complaint about 3e druids and wild casting holds water. Still, martial types have things that are roughly feat-like (fighting styles, for instance). If there's a problem with the feat/ASI balance, particularly concerning martials, I would rather have GWM toned back a bit, and more advantage given to martial types that need a boost.

Theodoxus

2017-08-17, 08:03 AM

There's some logic to that. Certainly the old 'Feats Should be Nice, but not Required' complaint about 3e druids and wild casting holds water. Still, martial types have things that are roughly feat-like (fighting styles, for instance). If there's a problem with the feat/ASI balance, particularly concerning martials, I would rather have GWM toned back a bit, and more advantage given to martial types that need a boost.

One could easily have a scaling system in place with fighting styles. Take GWS at 1st on a fighter, gain the Crit/Kill cleaving bonus attack portion of GWM at 6th and the -5/+10 Power Attack portion at 12th.

Similar with SS; Archery at 1st, Piercing at 6th and Power Attack at 12th.

Protection at 1st, Shield Masters AC Bonus to Dex saves at 6th and bonus actin shove at 12th.

Rangers and Paladins would follow similar guidelines. Would probably need to discuss multiclassing... do the class levels stack, like proficiency, or are the discreet, like ASIs... Pros/Cons for both ways.

Then there's the other fighting styles that have lesser feat support... Defensive? HAM maybe at 6th, and perhaps Tough at 12th? Dueling and TWF both are so meh for feats... probably need a little boost one way or another.

Similar things could be done for casters... Bards get Actor; Sorcerer's Elemental Adept... makes it more cookie cutter doing it that way, so maybe not...

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-17, 09:53 AM

One could easily have a scaling system in place with fighting styles. Take GWS at 1st on a fighter, gain the Crit/Kill cleaving bonus attack portion of GWM at 6th and the -5/+10 Power Attack portion at 12th.

Similar with SS; Archery at 1st, Piercing at 6th and Power Attack at 12th.

Protection at 1st, Shield Masters AC Bonus to Dex saves at 6th and bonus actin shove at 12th.

Rangers and Paladins would follow similar guidelines. Would probably need to discuss multiclassing... do the class levels stack, like proficiency, or are the discreet, like ASIs... Pros/Cons for both ways.

Then there's the other fighting styles that have lesser feat support... Defensive? HAM maybe at 6th, and perhaps Tough at 12th? Dueling and TWF both are so meh for feats... probably need a little boost one way or another.

Similar things could be done for casters... Bards get Actor; Sorcerer's Elemental Adept... makes it more cookie cutter doing it that way, so maybe not...

I like this idea (in principle--the devils are always in the details). I'm a big fan of moving balancing features into the relevant classes themselves and leaving feats to open new options and to reinforce characteristics of the characters beyond simply "kill them dead quicker." That also helps feats be truly optional--leaving them out doesn't change inter- or intra-class balance much.

On the more general topic: in my experience many players (especially newer ones) tend to disregard optimization across the board (beyond the level of "make sure your highest stat is relevant to your class"). I've had people take Actor, Linguist(!), Observant, etc with non-maxed primary stats. The good thing about 5e is that the power curve is flat enough and balanced enough that there are very few trap options. A chunk of Charger (and Grappler, IIRC) are just useless--they don't function as designed. A few spells (true strike, for example) are pretty pointless. Generally though, you can be effective if you pick what seems cool to you, as long as you use it.

None of this is to say that certain feats are annoyingly out-of-band with other feats and ASIs. Just that we should remember that people who visit these forums are not the norm among players or DMs.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-17, 10:21 AM

I like this idea (in principle--the devils are always in the details). I'm a big fan of moving balancing features into the relevant classes themselves and leaving feats to open new options and to reinforce characteristics of the characters beyond simply "kill them dead quicker." That also helps feats be truly optional--leaving them out doesn't change inter- or intra-class balance much.

To me, it doesn't matter. There's no magical type-of-thing that is supposed to be within bounds for feats or not. I consider them to be what I think is how they got their name, 'non-class-or-race-based-features.'

Do note the downstream consequences though. If you move (say) Sharpshooter into the fighter realm, you cannot have a sharpshooting rogue. If you move Polearm Master into the fighting style mechanism, then your cleric can't use it. That may or may not be a benefit (depending on how many shield-plus-one-handed-quarterstaff-with-PAM-and-shillelagh-and-SCAG-cantrip clerics have appeared in your games). But it is important to be aware of.

Tanarii

2017-08-17, 10:37 AM

Sigreid

2017-08-17, 11:29 AM

If you're at a private table and your group agrees with you, give both if you want. The DM will have to account for the extra strength, but it should still be pretty fair within the group.

Beelzebubba

2017-08-17, 01:55 PM

all hit point damage is noted, but not applied, until the end of the round, in an effort to simulate simultaneous action - after all, rounds are divided by initiative for ease of play, not because player A literally shoots first while monster 1 patiently waits to get hit, and a few microseconds later rushes forward to attack...

- it's definitely possible that players will be knocked out and hit multiple times for failed death saves and dead before they even know it -

It would require a bit more bookkeeping on the DMs part - but a simple spreadsheet would do the trick.

Holy crap that sounds incredibly fun for a throwback 'old school' flavor game. Mexican Standoffs could be a real thing, finally!

That said, that's one of the things the new UA initiative tries to accomplish - every round you declare first, then roll initiative, and changing to another action after declaring hits you with a huge initiative penalty. So, you don't necessarily lose your action on needless overkill, but you then get re-shuffled to be much later in the round and that can cause huge chaos.

djreynolds

2017-08-18, 12:33 AM

I know people hated feat trees in 3.5............ but there was a reason for them.

Having great cleave and whirlwind attack at first level would be silly

Having GWM at 1st and 4th level or SS can be really unbalancing to the game

But if you made feats like war caster, elemental adept, SS, GWM, Shield master... class features.... it could work.

You might take protection style and later on gain part of the shield master feat

You might take archery style and gain pieces of SS

Etc.

Another idea I have tried is I just give out feats at certain intervals... but the player select them from groups.

Say 3rd level the PC can grab a combat feat, or a skill type feat, and then at 6th can grab what they didn't grab at 3rd and so on. This way players are becoming more well rounded and enjoying all the aspects of the game.

Another idea is rewarding players. I just gave out keen mind in a game to the entire party but only when in certain locales.

AvatarVecna

2017-08-18, 02:18 AM

I know people hated feat trees in 3.5............ but there was a reason for them.

Having great cleave and whirlwind attack at first level would be silly

Not to a significant degree, but only because Martials get to be at a serious disadvantage after the first few levels. Of course, the feat system in 3.5 got majorly screwed over because things were balanced with the Fighter in mind, but that's a whole 'nother story...

Having GWM at 1st and 4th level or SS can be really unbalancing to the game

But if you made feats like war caster, elemental adept, SS, GWM, Shield master... class features.... it could work.

You might take protection style and later on gain part of the shield master feat

You might take archery style and gain pieces of SS

Etc.

Another idea I have tried is I just give out feats at certain intervals... but the player select them from groups.

Say 3rd level the PC can grab a combat feat, or a skill type feat, and then at 6th can grab what they didn't grab at 3rd and so on. This way players are becoming more well rounded and enjoying all the aspects of the game.

Another idea is rewarding players. I just gave out keen mind in a game to the entire party but only when in certain locales.

My preference for how feats could be redone is to make them scale with level - or more likely, with proficiency bonus; the way feats are now, they're often appropriate for a particular level of play but are either underwhelming or overpowered. A good example is Heavy Armor Mastery, which gives 5e equivalent of DR 3/magic. It's amazing if you're a variant Human picking it up at lvl 1, since most people are doing 1d8+3 most of the time or whatever, but at lvl 20, when lots of creatures have magic weapons and deal tons of damage anyway, DR 3/magic isn't very impressive. I did a Remix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526311-Remixes-Of-Existing-Mechanics) a while back of several feats that had them scale with level, and I changed it to be effectively DR X/- equal to your proficiency bonus; means it's effectively DR 2/- when you get it, but means that it helps against magic and is more significant in the later levels. Sure, the difference between DR 3/- and DR 6/- against the Tarrasque isn't very significant, but it's still something.

I didn't do HWM and SS at the time, but what I'd probably do with them is change the "-5 attack/+10 damage" to "-X attack/+2X damage" with X being your proficiency bonus. Makes it a nice option early on, and makes it even better in the late-game, but means it's not super-OP. I'd also change the cover thing SS has to "reduce half and three-quarters cover by one step", and would change similar abilities in archery-focused class features, so that you wouldn't be punished for taking both the Sharpshooter feat and Sharpshooter subclass.

Kryx

2017-08-18, 02:40 AM

I'd probably do with them is change the "-5 attack/+10 damage" to "-X attack/+2X damage" with X being your proficiency bonus.
I've seen this suggestion several times now and would like to address it. Hit chance is consistently around 65% across an adventurer's career. Dropping to 55% at low levels and down to 35% at high levels isn't desired within the bounded accuracy system.

The damage is the only thing that needs to scale. So do -2/+X or disadvantage/+X or +3/+X.
-6/+12 is mathematically a terrible option. Options shouldn't get worse as you level.

djreynolds

2017-08-18, 03:05 AM

Not to a significant degree, but only because Martials get to be at a serious disadvantage after the first few levels. Of course, the feat system in 3.5 got majorly screwed over because things were balanced with the Fighter in mind, but that's a whole 'nother story...

My preference for how feats could be redone is to make them scale with level - or more likely, with proficiency bonus; the way feats are now, they're often appropriate for a particular level of play but are either underwhelming or overpowered. A good example is Heavy Armor Mastery, which gives 5e equivalent of DR 3/magic. It's amazing if you're a variant Human picking it up at lvl 1, since most people are doing 1d8+3 most of the time or whatever, but at lvl 20, when lots of creatures have magic weapons and deal tons of damage anyway, DR 3/magic isn't very impressive. I did a Remix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526311-Remixes-Of-Existing-Mechanics) a while back of several feats that had them scale with level, and I changed it to be effectively DR X/- equal to your proficiency bonus; means it's effectively DR 2/- when you get it, but means that it helps against magic and is more significant in the later levels. Sure, the difference between DR 3/- and DR 6/- against the Tarrasque isn't very significant, but it's still something.

I didn't do HWM and SS at the time, but what I'd probably do with them is change the "-5 attack/+10 damage" to "-X attack/+2X damage" with X being your proficiency bonus. Makes it a nice option early on, and makes it even better in the late-game, but means it's not super-OP. I'd also change the cover thing SS has to "reduce half and three-quarters cover by one step", and would change similar abilities in archery-focused class features, so that you wouldn't be punished for taking both the Sharpshooter feat and Sharpshooter subclass.

I like this, we have GWM and SS basically scale with our proficiency bonus, so from say 1st to 4th level its -2 to and +4 damage up to level 17 where it is -6 to hit and +12 damage.

This works.

My only complaint, and its not a serious one. Is martials are expected to serve a role, and something like the skilled feat is lost in this. I just want every one included in all game aspects. I often throw out oft used feats. We gave our wizard in a game savage attacker because he did some major damage versus a beholder with his staff.. it was a fun session. The cleric made a unbelievable jump and I decided... you've earned the athlete feat

I do like the idea of scaling feats and possibly class features. Savage attacker and GWM seem tailor made for a barbarian.

SharkForce

2017-08-18, 03:11 AM

Kryx

2017-08-18, 03:22 AM

it's supposed to be optional to use, not forced to be always-on. just like the feats.

it only decreases your chance to hit if you want it to.
It's a trap option. Choosing to use it or not doesn't change that -6 to hit is a terrible option, possibly even if you have advantage.

disadvantage/+Prof*2 is a much better scaling system where damage increases as you level so the damage isn't too much at lower levels.
Or -2 or -3 as flat values instead of disadvantage.

better yet, probably shouldn't be a feat at all since it kinda makes any feat that has it excessively valuable.
I agree in this regard - it should either be available to everyone or no one. But the implementation of it should be worthwhile, not an option that scales to be worse as you level.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-18, 03:27 AM

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

A not-all-that-common complaint about 3E and 4E is that there are too many feats, or specifically that a new player making a first level character is expected to pick one from a list of about a thousand options.

There are a few ways to fix this. One is to print only a couple dozen feats so that the choice becomes easier. Another is to make feats optional so that the choice can be eliminated entirely. WOTC has done both.

AvatarVecna

2017-08-18, 04:05 AM

It's a trap option. Choosing to use it or not doesn't change that -6 to hit is a terrible option, possibly even if you have advantage.

Not significantly more so than -5, but plenty of people are more than willing to accept the existing tradeoff.

EDIT: To be clear, I think GWM and Sharpshooter are already better than the average feat (even the average combat feat, which is important since those are the ones they should be compared to under the three pillars), and making their attack/damage tradeoff inherently better is not the goal of my suggestion.

djreynolds

2017-08-18, 04:32 AM

First off this has been a pleasant discussion. Its nice to see everyone's view and gather ideas and feedback.

And 5E is very enjoyable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWM and SS.... they just feel like class features.

I don't ban the feats at the table, and the reality is I myself have missed just as much with these feats as I have landed them. And they really bring some excellent team work at my table. With player A possibly shoving, player B casting bless, player C throwing out inspirations... all for player D to land these big whacks.

I do like the idea of instead of the -5 to hit, you would just roll with disadvantage.

And as stated before with bounded accuracy, you could never even push your main attack stat past 16 and be all right with just selecting feats instead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets be honest feats are more exciting than ASIs. Why not have both?

I would like to see feats and ability score improvements possibly separated, and in regard to feats at level X you could grab a combat feat and level Y, you would take a skills feat and then rinse and repeat.

And the same with ability scores as well. At 4th you might increase your physical stats, but at 8th you would increase your mental stats

Now the ranger isn't rushing headlong to grab SS and have a 20 in dex, but instead is tailoring a more well rounded PC.

3rd level combat feat
4th level ASI physical stat
6th level skill feat/ proficiency feat
8th level ASI mental stat

and so on

SharkForce

2017-08-18, 04:36 AM

It's a trap option. Choosing to use it or not doesn't change that -6 to hit is a terrible option, possibly even if you have advantage.

disadvantage/+Prof*2 is a much better scaling system where damage increases as you level so the damage isn't too much at lower levels.
Or -2 or -3 as flat values instead of disadvantage.

no, it's not a trap option. it's an option you use when you're fighting low AC targets, or otherwise have some means of offsetting the miss chance, and since it works exactly like the feats that push people into choosing those options over other things right now because those feats are so good, it seems remarkably improbable that it is really a horribly bad idea even if you're only looking at average hit chance.

if you are fighting a guy who is wearing a glowing suit of armour, a massive shield, and he looks like he has a blur spell active, you don't turn on power attack, and it isn't a disadvantage.

Waazraath

2017-08-18, 04:59 AM

Lets be honest feats are more exciting than ASIs. Why not have both?

I would like to see feats and ability score improvements possibly separated, and in regard to feats at level X you could grab a combat feat and level Y, you would take a skills feat and then rinse and repeat.

And the same with ability scores as well. At 4th you might increase your physical stats, but at 8th you would increase your mental stats

Now the ranger isn't rushing headlong to grab SS and have a 20 in dex, but instead is tailoring a more well rounded PC.

3rd level combat feat
4th level ASI physical stat
6th level skill feat/ proficiency feat
8th level ASI mental stat

and so on

I like this idea. It gives more options, without increasing the powerlevel too much.

AvatarVecna

2017-08-18, 05:07 AM

I've seen this suggestion several times now and would like to address it. Hit chance is consistently around 65% across an adventurer's career. Dropping to 55% at low levels and down to 35% at high levels isn't desired within the bounded accuracy system.

The damage is the only thing that needs to scale. So do -2/+X or disadvantage/+X or +3/+X.
-6/+12 is mathematically a terrible option. Options shouldn't get worse as you level.

Presuming that you need an 8 to hit without any tradeoff, you'll have these odds without the tradeoff:

w/o SS
Misses
Hits
Crits

Disadvantage
57.75%
42%
0.25%

Normal
35%
60%
5%

Advantage
12.25%
78%
9.75%

And these odds with the -6/+12 tradeoff:

w/ SS
Misses
Hits
Crits

Disadvantage
87.75%
12%
0.25%

Normal
65%
30%
5%

Advantage
42.25%
48%
9.75%

So, you deal X+Y on a hit, and 2X+Y on a crit (X is damage dice, Y is static bonuses), or X+Y+12 and 2X+Y+12 if you have the tradeoff. This means that your damage totals over the course of 400 attacks will average out to these totals:

Totals
w/o SS
w/ SS

Disadvantage
170X+169Y
50X+49Y+588

Normal
280X+260Y
160X+140Y+1680

Advantage
390X+351Y
270X+231Y+2772

To know if we should use the tradeoff, we have to know when the tradeoff deals more damage, and this requires us to find X and Y.

Disadvantage

170X+169Y<50X+49Y+588
120X+120Y<588
X+Y<4.9

Normal

280X+260Y<160X+140Y+1680
120X+120Y<1680
X+Y<14

Advantage

390X+351Y<270X+231Y+2772
120X+120Y<2772
X+Y<23.1

My conclusions: if you need an 8 to hit normally, and you have the option to take the -6/+12 tradeoff, you should take that tradeoff if:
You're attacking at disadvantage, and your normal Hit damage is less than 4.9 on average
You're attacking without advantage or disadvantage, and your normal Hit damage is less than 14 on average
You're attacking with advantage, and your normal Hit damage is less than 23.1 on average

So...don't use the big penalty if you're at disadvantage (unless you're already completely awful damagewise, but then why would you take SS at all), use it normally unless you've got a nice damage boost on top of your bow and Dex, and use it when you have disadvantage unless you've got a big damage boost without it (even a Fighter with an Oathbow active will want to make that tradeoff, whereas a high level Rogue will prefer to get as good a chance as possible at landing their SA damage). Of course, if you have the Archery Fighting Style, accuracy goes up across the board and makes the tradeoff even more worth it, but eh.

EvilAnagram

2017-08-18, 06:00 AM

Beelzebubba

2017-08-18, 06:35 AM

All told, even with my curmudgeony take, we do allow home brew at our table. If I were to tweak things, it would be this:
1) Banning Variant Human
2) Move the feat/ASI at 19th to 1st level, but it has to be a Feat, and Race/Skill feats are encouraged

It feels like most of the really interesting feat chains get online at 12th. Since most campaigns don't go much further, then players have very little time to enjoy it. Getting everything running at 8th instead means you have a full concept going for the 'meat and potatoes' levels of the game.

So, IMO front-loading it a bit more is fine, but characters are hard enough to balance without power creeping even further.

smcmike

2017-08-18, 07:25 AM

Theodoxus

2017-08-18, 07:41 AM

Changing the -5 on GWM to disadvantage disproportionately helps barbarians who can ignore the disad with reckless attack. At that point, GWM becomes a no brainer for every barbarian.

One tweak I'd make, if I were to use the -Prof/+prof*2 formula, would be to let the player choose any range up to their max proficiency bonus. If they're fighting a zombie horde at 17th level, go nuts with -6/+12, but if they're fighting something with a 16 or more AC, maybe just using a -1/+2 for a bit more oomph is a better call.
I'd also rule that, much like reckless attack, the penalty/bonus has be used on your first attack, and used on all attacks that round - but you can change the ratio from round to round.

@Willie - regarding sharpshooting rogues and whatnot. Couple options; either keep the feats as well as modifying the fighting styles, so non-fighters/paladins/rangers can be competitive or uncouple the fighting style upgrades from the class and place it on the character level. It would make fighter dips even more popular, so there's that aspect...

Another idea would be to include level requirements for feats. If GWM and SS are too powerful at 1st or 4th level, rule they require level 6+. I mean, outside of some pretty niche builds, it's hard to actually "whirlwind attack" ala 3.5 at 1st level (requiring suboptimal TWF), but it's doable-ish (it really comes online for monks at 2nd level, and other martials at 5th) but it's a native ability in 5E. The feat build is baked in, and was one of the changes my table relished (along with dex to damage - a LONG time coming).

Zalabim

2017-08-18, 07:42 AM

no, it's not a trap option. it's an option you use when you're fighting low AC targets, or otherwise have some means of offsetting the miss chance, and since it works exactly like the feats that push people into choosing those options over other things right now because those feats are so good, it seems remarkably improbable that it is really a horribly bad idea even if you're only looking at average hit chance.

if you are fighting a guy who is wearing a glowing suit of armour, a massive shield, and he looks like he has a blur spell active, you don't turn on power attack, and it isn't a disadvantage.

The only caution I have is that the feat's version of power attack is as good as it is so that you usually want to use it because it is a feat. It's something the player specifically picked instead of another option and is supposed to feel worthwhile compared to just taking the ASI that applies instead. Making the feat's power attack more of a trade off risks turning the feat into another Charger, or making a generic system option that's the same as the feat's risks making low AC too punishing.

All things that are easy to calibrate with math, but it can be hard to decide what point to calibrate them to.

Theodoxus

2017-08-18, 08:01 AM

Then provide a retraining option. Every spellcaster that has spells known instead of spells prepared has the option to swap out "retrain" spells that are no longer useful.
It's part of the "casters have nice things, melee gets the shaft" mentality that still pervades. But a player shouldn't feel locked into a suboptimal style or feat choice. AL lets you completely recreate your character up to 5th level. Beyond that, I guess only character death would grant you the option to "retrain". That's pretty harsh.

But I don't think it'd be overpowering to let a player change out 1 aspect of their class per level. If you built for GWM, with GWS and GWM and maybe even PAM - but decide to be an archer instead, it'd take 3 levels to slowly swap out those feats for Archery and SS, possibly XBX, more likely taking a +2 Dex instead. Whatever...

It's certainly less shocking than a sorcerer swapping out burning hands for Fireball at 5th level. :smallwink:

Easy_Lee

2017-08-18, 09:00 AM

Kryx

2017-08-18, 09:22 AM

Thinking about GWM and SS, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to turn these into half feats and make disadv/+2prof a feature anyone can activate when making any attack. Call it power attack. We all can think of ways to throw a haymaker with any given weapon or spell attack, I'm sure.

5e gave everyone spring attack, and I see no reason not to continue the trend.
It even fills the niche of called shots for those people as well.

=======

Regarding scaling negative to hit:
If the feature is just to crush lower CR enemies then it isn't a great design imo. If the feature is "up to" -6/+12, then that's a different feature than always being whatever your proficiency bonus is.

Barbarian already should nearly always use -5/+10. Changing -5 to disadvantage doesn't change that.

Either way you decide on "up to", I've said this a hundred times about the topic: -5/+10 is either too good (Barbarian, trip attack, oath of enmity, archery fighting style), about the strength of a feat itself (normal Fighter), or mediocre/not so great (Paladins, Rangers, Rogue, anything with riders).
My math shows that the -X/+Y feature is terribly balanced across classes in 5e as the damage results of -5/+10 have such a large variance across the classes. Strong features like reckless, fighter trip attack, paladin oov, +2 to hit from archery, or anything that grants advantage all become even stronger features and crowd out the other choices far more than they already do. That limits player choice, it doesn't expand it.

===========

To get back on the topic of the thread: I'm curious to explore possibly raising all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 (normal limits of 20 max apply). It encourages odd stats to start, early feats, less dumped ability scores as the characters progress, discourages straight to 20 (although it's unlikely with point buy).
We could drop an ASI or two to account for it. 4e did something similar at 11 and 21 I think.

Tanarii

2017-08-18, 09:57 AM

Hit chance is consistently 65% across all levels if you consistently only face enemies of your level's CR. Appropriate CR encounters are not necessarily against single foes of your CR level.
Absolutely. Any data analysis based on assuming AC from CR = level doesn't appear to me to match system assumptions, because the system doesn't seem to assume solos are the default.

That's why I did a (admittedly quick and dirty) analysis of the system 'hit' math at CR-3. The answer is you really only need to spend one ASI to increase your primary stat to stay on par to an 18, at either 8th level or 12th.

If you assume CR-2 as a general rule, it means you may want to consider raising your primary to 20 at level 19 to maintain par.

That's not to say getting ahead of the system math by going to 20 early on is some kind of mistake. Just that the system doesn't appear to assume you will. Nor that starting behind (ie +2 to hit) is some kind of terrible mistake.

Theodoxus

2017-08-18, 11:37 AM

In my experience, even removing optional rules like MC and Feats, I've yet to see any DM also remove all magic items. Between weapon bonuses and stat boosting items like belts of giantkind, I'd hazard that not having any ASIs at all would still keep up with bounded accuracy via magic.

Obviously, you shouldn't balance the game as a whole around magic; but any specific campaign certainly can be.

SharkForce

2017-08-18, 02:14 PM

The only caution I have is that the feat's version of power attack is as good as it is so that you usually want to use it because it is a feat. It's something the player specifically picked instead of another option and is supposed to feel worthwhile compared to just taking the ASI that applies instead. Making the feat's power attack more of a trade off risks turning the feat into another Charger, or making a generic system option that's the same as the feat's risks making low AC too punishing.

All things that are easy to calibrate with math, but it can be hard to decide what point to calibrate them to.

as i've mentioned elsewhere, i also favour the (gradually becoming more accepted?) option of making power attack into a base mechanic of the game rather than part of any feat.

It even fills the niche of called shots for those people as well.

=======

Regarding scaling negative to hit:
If the feature is just to crush lower CR enemies then it isn't a great design imo. If the feature is "up to" -6/+12, then that's a different feature than always being whatever your proficiency bonus is.

Barbarian already should nearly always use -5/+10. Changing -5 to disadvantage doesn't change that.

Either way you decide on "up to", I've said this a hundred times about the topic: -5/+10 is either too good (Barbarian, trip attack, oath of enmity, archery fighting style), about the strength of a feat itself (normal Fighter), or mediocre/not so great (Paladins, Rangers, Rogue, anything with riders).
My math shows that the -X/+Y feature is terribly balanced across classes in 5e as the damage results of -5/+10 have such a large variance across the classes. Strong features like reckless, fighter trip attack, paladin oov, +2 to hit from archery, or anything that grants advantage all become even stronger features and crowd out the other choices far more than they already do. That limits player choice, it doesn't expand it.

===========

To get back on the topic of the thread: I'm curious to explore possibly raising all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 (normal limits of 20 max apply). It encourages odd stats to start, early feats, less dumped ability scores as the characters progress, discourages straight to 20 (although it's unlikely with point buy).
We could drop an ASI or two to account for it. 4e did something similar at 11 and 21 I think.

- average AC increases with CR. however, practically speaking, it is entirely possible to have a CR 1 creature with AC 20, and a CR 20 creature with AC 10. so no, it isn't just when you're fighting lower CR creatures (though, as noted, multiple lower CR creatures should probably be the majority of your battles regardless, because solo creatures tend to just get utterly destroyed if they don't have something like legendary or lair actions to help out their action economy). point being: it isn't something that should become only useful against weak creatures. just low AC ones. which can be weak or strong, regardless.

- not a fan of variable power attack. it sounds like the kind of thing that invites getting out a spreadsheet in the middle of a fight to figure out how much you should be trading in. it would probably be fine for some people, but at most i could see allowing half power attack (so take half the proficiency bonus, rounded down, that's the penalty to hit, and double that number for the bonus to damage).

- bonuses to hit (in either advantage or numeric form) are already heavily incentivized. power attack won't really change that.

Kryx

2017-08-18, 04:22 PM

practically speaking, it is entirely possible to have a CR 1 creature with AC 20, and a CR 20 creature with AC 10. so no, it isn't just when you're fighting lower CR creatures
Creatures in the monster manual and WotC adventure paths almost never fall outside of a small variance from the DMG recommend AC for CR. It's possible that a DM can choose to customize creatures, but that's not the default.

- not a fan of variable power attack. it sounds like the kind of thing that invites getting out a spreadsheet in the middle of a fight to figure out how much you should be trading in.
Nor am I, but -5/+10 does have spreadsheets and guides dedicated to when to use it. It is a purely optimization based feature by RAW or with any adjustments. I don't use it for this reasons and balance reasons.
Scaling the to hit makes no logical sense. The goal is to provide more damage as you level and enemies have far more hp as you level. Removing more to hit as you level is a bad feature for every class that doesn't have a way to counteract it.

- bonuses to hit (in either advantage or numeric form) are already heavily incentivized. power attack won't really change that.
Those features are strong, but if you take trip attack for example then every other maneuver starts to look much weaker in comparison if -5/+10 is involved. Without -5/+10 trip attack is still a good option, but other options are much more competitive.

============

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-18, 05:00 PM

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

I have a mixed opinion on this.

One the one hand, I would prefer that 5e had done something like this from the start. Attributes automatically increase with each tier, and instead of ASIs characters just get feats like they always have. The feats would have to be revised, of course. Most likely, half feats would lose their +1, and many other feats would be split into two so as to keep all feats at close to the same power level.

Which leads me to my issue. I've written up an entire 80-page book of homebrew before, and only one of my players read it. A lot of players don't want to familiarize themselves with new rules. Just look at how many groups never moved past 3.5e.

For that reason, I believe homebrew should be kept as simple as possible. +1 ability scores and the necessity of revised feats would involve a big change. If all of your players are on board, go for it. If not, or if you're unsure, i wouldn't try it.

Kryx

2017-08-18, 05:10 PM

My houserules aren't small so it's not a big issue for my group.

It's more a question of design. I already split feats to be half the power like you mention. Perhaps I'll explore auto increasing ability scores.

Theodoxus

2017-08-18, 05:20 PM

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

Only +1? (I wasn't sure what you were promoting in your original post...)

So, PB, you're maxing at 20 if you're playing a race that has a +2 to a stat, and it's something you want maxed. Half-elf charisma casters steal the show. Halfling and elf rogues, mountain dwarf barbarians, gmome wizards... and everyone who wants to play a cleric is begging to be able to play a firbolg...

Non-traditional combinations dry up - and standard array is poopoo'd as not having enough odd numbers to be "worth it" (unless you're starting standard human).

For a low powered game, I could see it working. It would definitely promote more half feats, just for the extra +1 to a stat...

I think a slightly better option would be 4 points to spread across stats, not more than +2 to any single stat, and you can't raise the same stat by +2 two consecutive times.

So, for 4D6L1, keep +1 to all at 5, 10, 15
For PB/SA, use 4 points, max +2 at 5, 10, 15

Kryx

2017-08-18, 05:39 PM

Only +1? (I wasn't sure what you were promoting in your original post...)

So, PB, you're maxing at 20 if you're playing a race that has a +2 to a stat, and it's something you want maxed. Half-elf charisma casters steal the show. Halfling and elf rogues, mountain dwarf barbarians, gmome wizards... and everyone who wants to play a cleric is begging to be able to play a firbolg...
I'm not the OP, just asking for feedback on an idea.

My ASIs already provide +1 (feats are half sized) and races allow much more freedom where pluses go. So races that dedicate 15 point buy and +2 to one stat end up with 17 to start and that'd naturally increase to 20 at 15th level, or they could "waste points" to do it earlier.
Standard array and rolling will never be considerations for my group.

The point of giving +1 to all abilities is to force the flavor of characters growing in more than one dimension. D&D favors SAD advancement and this helps bring a bit more robustness to characters as they gain experience.

Theodoxus

2017-08-18, 08:04 PM

well, with that additional tidbit of information, it'd probably work well. Implemented as an across the board variant for any table to consider, I still feel would be quite underpowered.

djreynolds

2017-08-18, 11:26 PM

I'm really curious if anyone has an opinion on +1 all ability scores at 5, 10, and 15 and removing an ASI or two.

I like this idea

I'm just amazed how any PC going from 1st level to 20th level.... hasn't gotten any smarter.

Say a barbarian starts the game at level 1 with an intelligence of 8, and at 20th level still has that same intelligence of 8.

To go from private to sergeant major to general.... you must have become wiser, smarter, and more charismatic

I understand this is what proficiency bonus is all about, but to say you got better at intimidation because you are proficient in it... but you're ability to deceive and persuade is the same as it was at level 1.... kinda silly

But with an incremental upgrade of some many abilities... it shows growth in all areas

SharkForce

2017-08-19, 12:24 AM

I like this idea

I'm just amazed how any PC going from 1st level to 20th level.... hasn't gotten any smarter.

Say a barbarian starts the game at level 1 with an intelligence of 8, and at 20th level still has that same intelligence of 8.

To go from private to sergeant major to general.... you must have become wiser, smarter, and more charismatic

I understand this is what proficiency bonus is all about, but to say you got better at intimidation because you are proficient in it... but you're ability to deceive and persuade is the same as it was at level 1.... kinda silly

But with an incremental upgrade of some many abilities... it shows growth in all areas

you'd be surprised.

there are an awful lot of officers that managed to never really learn from their mistakes, in spite of having plenty of them. the ones that did learn from their mistakes are generally the ones we recognize as being extremely good officers.

that said, D&D is not the game you play to be an average joe, so improving in every way probably fits better than not improving in every way :P

djreynolds

2017-08-19, 12:39 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-19, 07:01 AM

Right we are not average joes but we have 1st level PCs with the same skills as 20th level PCs

I mean my 20th level wizard after years of walking around and adventuring and hardened battles.... still cannot climb the gym rope. I mean the wizard not me.

As pedantic point (but one of my pet peeves): anyone can climb a gym rope in 5e. Climbing generally costs double movement, but no ability check. Only particularly slick or difficult surfaces may take a check.

This gets at a philosophical difference between 5e and some previous editions--adventurers are presumed to be competent at adventuring tasks (like climbing, jumping, and swimming). Only particularly difficult instances call for checks. Even when they do require checks, many DCs can be met even with a negative modifier: few DCs should be 20+.

Pex

2017-08-19, 11:35 AM

As pedantic point (but one of my pet peeves): anyone can climb a gym rope in 5e. Climbing generally costs double movement, but no ability check. Only particularly slick or difficult surfaces may take a check.

This gets at a philosophical difference between 5e and some previous editions--adventurers are presumed to be competent at adventuring tasks (like climbing, jumping, and swimming). Only particularly difficult instances call for checks. Even when they do require checks, many DCs can be met even with a negative modifier: few DCs should be 20+.

Depends on the DM. Some DMs will require a roll to climb a rope.

"It depends on who is DM that day." (tm) :smallwink:

DanyBallon

2017-08-19, 12:10 PM

Depends on the DM. Some DMs will require a roll to climb a rope.

"It depends on who is DM that day." (tm) :smallwink:

It's always good to know before hand if a DM use houserule in his game :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, the 20th level wizard did get better in the stuff he was proficient. In 3.P it is done by investing skill points while in 5e it's done by being proficient in a skill. The number and range have change but the end result is the same. I'd even say that in 3.P if you didn't invest a single skill point in a skill then by 20th level you had close to zero chance to succeed (a nat 20 still was possible), while in 5e, due to BA you could manage to pull it out, not as often as someone who is proficient, yet it is still possible to succeed on an unproficient skill check.

What 3.P had over 5e, is granularity, as you could decide to max out one skill, invest half as much in another and may be 1/4th in a 3rd one (but doing so would be a waste of skill points.)

Tanarii

2017-08-19, 12:16 PM

an unproficient skill check.
Ability Check. That's kind of a nitpick, but IMO part of making the difference between 5e clear to players is to always refer to them as ability checks, and always refence the abilit score being used. If a skill proficiency also applies, use the PHB format and name & emphasize the ability score first. Not the skill. This helps encourage players to realize they shouldn't be afraid to make 'untrained skill checks'.

Unless you as a DM are constantly calling for checks for things that shouldn't require checks at all and setting wildly high DCs. In that case, the DM is the one stuck in old edition thinking.

Edit: to be clear, I know this, yet I still fall into this 'trap' regularly, both in my posts on the boards and in game. It's not an easy thing to change a pattern of thinking that's long ingrained. Moving from "everything is a skill check, some get ability mods" to "everything is an ability check, some get skill mods" is a fairly huge difference. But it's still hard to break the habit of of (as a DM) forcing every check into a skill or (as a player) only trying things that you have a high ability score and are proficient in.

DanyBallon

2017-08-19, 12:33 PM

Ability Check. That's kind of a nitpick, but IMO part of making the difference between 5e clear to players is to always refer to them as ability checks, and always refence the abilit score being used. If a skill proficiency also applies, use the PHB format and name & emphasize the ability score first. Not the skill. This helps encourage players to realize they shouldn't be afraid to make 'untrained skill checks'.

Unless you as a DM are constantly calling for checks for things that shouldn't require checks at all and setting wildly high DCs. In that case, the DM is the one stuck in old edition thinking.

Edit: to be clear, I know this, yet I still fall into this 'trap' regularly, both in my posts on the boards and in game. It's not an easy thing to change a pattern of thinking that's long ingrained. Moving from "everything is a skill check, some get ability mods" to "everything is an ability check, some get skill mods" is a fairly huge difference. But it's still hard to break the habit of of (as a DM) forcing every check into a skill or (as a player) only trying things that you have a high ability score and are proficient in.

Your right!

I have that same problem as you :smallbiggrin:

Also, for players and DMs that have played a long time in 3.P and 4e, where you needed a skill check for everything, it take some time to get use to the philosophy of calling skill Ability check only when there is a chance for failure, and only if the character have a reason to be able to succeed.
i.e.: an illiterate character shouldn't be allowed an Ability check to decipher an ancient scroll, even if he have a high Int score
Yet I always allow the players to try and convince me otherwise. It may get them the chance to roll, or if their story is good, but I still believe they are not allowed an Ability check, then I give them an Inspiration point for their effort.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-19, 12:42 PM

In 3.P it is done by investing skill points while in 5e it's done by being proficient in a skill. The number and range have change but the end result is the same.

The obvious difference is that in 3.P you automatically get skills every time you level up, whereas in 5E you never become proficient in skills except at first level (or by spending one of your preciously few feats).

Theodoxus

2017-08-19, 12:49 PM

DanyBallon

2017-08-19, 12:55 PM

The obvious difference is that in 3.P you automatically get skills every time you level up, whereas in 5E you never become proficient in skills except at first level (or by spending one of your preciously few feats).

True, but if you want to be good at what you are doing due to the constant increase of DC, you will put the skill points you get every level in the few skills you picked at 1st level, which is pretty much the same as selecting proficiency at 1st level. Don't you think?

Kurald Galain

2017-08-19, 12:57 PM

True, but if you want to be good at what you are doing due to the constant increase of DC, you will put the skill points you get every level in the few skills you picked at 1st level, which is pretty much the same as selecting proficiency at 1st level. Don't you think?

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.

DanyBallon

2017-08-19, 01:13 PM

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.

I might remember wrong, but I recall seeing skill DC in the 30+ in published adventure for level 10+

They had to do so, otherwise by level 10 a character that maxed out a skill would succeed most of the time on a DC 20 check (3 skill point at 1st level + 9 more for level 2-10 + ability score mod bonus, +3 is reasonable by level 10= +15 on you skill roll!!!)

Kurald Galain

2017-08-19, 01:24 PM

They had to do so, otherwise by level 10 a character that maxed out a skill would succeed most of the time on a DC 20 check (3 skill point at 1st level + 9 more for level 2-10 + ability score mod bonus, +3 is reasonable by level 10= +15 on you skill roll!!!)

Why is it a problem for a level 10 character that has maxed out a skill to succeed most of the time?

Lombra

2017-08-19, 01:25 PM

I hope that this doesn't shock anyone, but quest rewards can be something different than loot. There's a section in the DMG about it, feats as rewards are an option, ASIs are an option. I know that DMs are not really taken in consideration during these theorycrafts, but the game does take them in consideration, hence most of the divergencies on the forums, because DMs can't be generalized, they are taken away from the equations, giving altered results.

DanyBallon

2017-08-19, 02:59 PM

Why is it a problem for a level 10 character that has maxed out a skill to succeed most of the time?

Because they wanted to keep the PCs challenged. Why bother go up to 20th level if since 10th you overcome easily overcome every challenge?

It's like you're suggesting that a 10th level character will not see it as a problem if all he fight are rats and kobolds? It's quite unsatisfying, hence the why, as far as I remember, 3.P had DC being higher and higher as characters level up. Just to keep them challenged. The same as you have higher CR creatures that follows the characters progression.

5e on the other hand don't have scaling DCs as the modifiers are relatively kept in check. A proficient 20th level character with a maxed out related ability will only have +11, which still leave place for failure. Only characters with expertise will succeed almost every time.

Tanarii

2017-08-19, 04:40 PM

I think that's why people get confused between investigation and perception checks. Perception uses Wisdom normally - it's intuiting how someone decided to hide something (like a trap in door or chest), or if the thing approaching your camp sounds like a tiger or a horse... Investigation uses Intelligence normally - it's deducing through reason that because the rug has a slight upward bulge on the edge, that it's covering up something routinely moved, thus allowing the character to find the secret crawl space.

Calling out for Wisdom checks or Intelligence checks (or "players choice" and let them describe what they're doing) is a much better way of searching for traps/locks/hidden alcoves, etc.Wisdom isn't just intuition, it's also awareness of the world around you. As in not living inside your own head.

But yeah, that means Wisdom (Perception) is for noticing something. Depending on your DM might be a detail that's off requiring further thinking on the part of the player, to just finding things.

And Intelligence (Investigation) is figuring out things based on available information. Explicitly, it's deduction.

I agree it should depend on what the player says they're doing. But it's an irritatingly fine line sometimes. As soon as you try to make hard cases without knowing PC approach, you can run into issues. Let alone dealing with the difference

Constantly increasing DCs are a 4E invention; 3E has static DCs for most skills.
3e still had a tendency to assume challenges scaled with level. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it does lead to specialization, and a tendency not to try and do things due to a low chance of success. That was exacerbated by the rather large difference in success between highly skilled and unskilled.

That's fine if that's what you want. It doesn't work so well if you prefer to assume that most adventurers should have some chance of succeeding on most things they'll run into while adventuring. Just as everyone can contribute in combat due, there (generally, not always) should be some chance to contribute to a variety of chance out of combat.

Obviously there's some exceptions even in 5e. If the party is arguing about the meaning of an Arcane symbol (group check), the Int 8 character with no proficiency might want to stay out of the discussion. If the party is planning an Ambush, the Dex 8 Heavy Armor characters might need to volunteer to be the obviously loud distraction coming from another direction, or let the stealthy folks hit and run and pull the enemy back to them.

Kurald Galain

2017-08-20, 03:24 AM

Because they wanted to keep the PCs challenged. Why bother go up to 20th level if since 10th you overcome easily overcome every challenge?

Because the challenge isn't "make a skill check". The challenge is something like "save the kingdom from the evil foozle", and if one particular character is an expert at one particular skill that doesn't make it any less of a challenge. Think of challenges as complex multi-part problems, not as rolling a 6+ on 1d20.

DanyBallon

2017-08-20, 04:58 AM

Because the challenge isn't "make a skill check". The challenge is something like "save the kingdom from the evil foozle", and if one particular character is an expert at one particular skill that doesn't make it any less of a challenge. Think of challenges as complex multi-part problems, not as rolling a 6+ on 1d20.

So you're saying that the fighting specialist will be fine facing low CR creatures all the way until they save the country, because, because being expert at one particular "skill" (fighting) doesn't make it less a challenge?
I'm pretty sure that most of us would find this boring as hell, hence why there are tons of books on monsters ranging from low to high CR. Skill checks are all the same, and it's why that in 3.P, the skill DCs increase when you level up. Sure a wooden lock door might be a DC 17 to unlock or break at level 1 and still will be at level 20, but high level adventures will through you a dwarven masterwork adamentine door which would be DC 34 instead, that's how the DC follow the skills progressions in 3.P

In 5e, you don't need to more and more complex contraption so the character feel challenged, the same door can be used over and over, same as facing a group ok goblins at 20th level will still poses a threath, a lesser one, but still a threath if you are not careful.

This is the big difference between both systems, while at the same time managing to let the character feel challenged at all level.

thereaper

2017-08-21, 12:42 AM

It's only punishment if you have a huge sense of entitlement. Balanced games mean 'I have to give up *this cool thing* to get *the other cool thing*.'

When the choices are agonizing, because this other thing over there is so tempting that you feel like you have to have it, but then this thing you have right now is just as good but has other limitations...

THAT IS A GOOD GAME.

The game is PERFECTLY BALANCED as is.

This is impossible, unless the party literally never levels up. Spellcasters scale faster than martials, so if the game is perfectly balanced at level X, then it is unbalanced at levels X+y or X-y.

The rest of your post, however, is spot on. Being forced to choose between two good options is good game design.

Zalabim

2017-08-21, 02:52 AM

This is impossible, unless the party literally never levels up. Spellcasters scale faster than martials, so if the game is perfectly balanced at level X, then it is unbalanced at levels X+y or X-y.
That sounds a lot like a bare assertion with no support.

thereaper

2017-08-21, 07:35 AM

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But seriously, look at the dpr charts. It's the only thing most martials are particularly good at (Rogue and Paladin being exceptions), and there is a clear plateau in the teens. Meanwhile, casters are only just getting their really good stuff.

But I did probably come off unnecessarily hostile. The game isn't really intended to be played at the levels where the imbalances start to become particularly noticeable (as can be seen from the lack of appropriate challenges at those levels, the increasing lack of thought put into the implications of spells at higher levels, and the breakdown of the saving throw math). Perfect balance isn't necessary. As long as one ends their campaign at level 11 or so, things are probably "close enough".

Easy_Lee

2017-08-21, 08:00 AM

As far as casters vs martials, consider this. A level 20 fighter can action surge one more time than a level 5 fighter per short rest. A level 20 monk can stunning strike four times as often per rest as a level 5 monk. But a wizard at level 20 probably doesn't bother with most of the spells he used to cast at level 5. He can still cast spells like hypnotic pattern, but he can also do much more powerful things. And he can do so many more times per day.

The issue between casters and martials is that casters continue getting lots of new capabilities at later levels, while most martials don't. Monks actually have some of the best scaling out of any martial, but even they can't make themselves immortal.

Zalabim

2017-08-21, 08:44 AM

Easy_Lee

2017-08-21, 09:08 AM

Compared to a level 5 fighter, the level 20 fighter is Action Surging all the time. Then they can actually Action Surge twice on top of their doubled attacks. A lot of the spells a wizard used at level 5 are still good at level 20. Hypnotic Pattern doesn't become bad. Mirror Image, Misty Step, Blink, and the like are still defensive spells. Mage armor and Shield are likely to stick around. The wizard actually particularly highlights this phenomenon by getting Signature Spells and Spell Mastery.

There's a common perception that having five different levers is the only thing that's worthwhile, but you can only use them each once. Meanwhile, the rogue or fighter are standing over here with a lever that's twice as long and they can use it again and again.

I also don't think people believe that casters only get to use their really good stuff once per day. Their lower level spells don't get much better, just higher DCs, and they only get a handful of higher level spells. At level 5, 3rd-level spells are clearly a cut above and you get 2 or 3. At level 10, 3rd-5th level spells are mostly in the same tier, and you have 8 or 9 uses. For the spells of higher levels, no one ever gets more than 6. Everyone has slower progression after level 10. Casters aren't even getting one more spell slot each level anymore.

I don't think you understand that monster HP scales with player damage. A fighter at level 20 doesn't get four times as much attack power as a level 1 fighter. You'd think he does, since he has four attacks. But those four attacks take off the same percentage of an appropriate CR enemy's health that one attack used to.

Conditions, meanwhile, are equally useful at every level. If you can paralyze an enemy, that's just as good at level 20 as at level 5. A level 20 monk can paralyze more targets per rest than a level 5 monk, and can also flurry more often for more damage. This is why monk scaling is better than fighter scaling. They actually get better at what they do, rather than staying the same.

To your lever analogy, rogues and fighters don't get longer levers. Their levers stay the same length relative monsters. So do most wizard levers. But wizards get more levers. And some of those levers inflict conditions on multiple targets, or a single target for multiple rounds. As I said, those conditions are equally useful at every level. Inflicting a condition on multiple targets is better than inflicting it on just one. And that's the kind of capability that wizards get.

In conclusion, fighters scale exactly with the game, but wizards get new capabilities. That means that if a wizard is balanced at level 5, wizards are by definition overpowered at later levels. I'm just making observations about game mechanics, here.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-21, 09:13 AM

Oh good, another thread devolving into a spellcaster-v.-martial headbutting contest. I'm sure this time we will finally resolve this issue once and for all. :smallconfused:

Ninja-Radish

2017-08-21, 09:20 AM

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

Unoriginal

2017-08-21, 10:16 AM

I don't think you understand that monster HP scales with player damage. A fighter at level 20 doesn't get four times as much attack power as a level 1 fighter. You'd think he does, since he has four attacks. But those four attacks take off the same percentage of an appropriate CR enemy's health that one attack used to.

Conditions, meanwhile, are equally useful at every level. If you can paralyze an enemy, that's just as good at level 20 as at level 5. A level 20 monk can paralyze more targets per rest than a level 5 monk, and can also flurry more often for more damage. This is why monk scaling is better than fighter scaling. They actually get better at what they do, rather than staying the same.

To your lever analogy, rogues and fighters don't get longer levers. Their levers stay the same length relative monsters. So do most wizard levers. But wizards get more levers. And some of those levers inflict conditions on multiple targets, or a single target for multiple rounds. As I said, those conditions are equally useful at every level. Inflicting a condition on multiple targets is better than inflicting it on just one. And that's the kind of capability that wizards get.

In conclusion, fighters scale exactly with the game, but wizards get new capabilities. That means that if a wizard is balanced at level 5, wizards are by definition overpowered at later levels. I'm just making observations about game mechanics, here.

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?

Easy_Lee

2017-08-21, 10:35 AM

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?

Table dependent, but that would just mean that AoE is even stronger. Can't speak for your experiences, but in mine casters shine when they can hit a large number of creatures with one spell.

Regardless, this doesn't affect my point in any way. Casters gain more and stronger abilities than martials the higher they go. And this is another concern about feats. A martial can specialize with feats to a greater degree than most casters, since Metamagic is no longer accessible via feats. Fewer feats means less martial specialization.

Tanarii

2017-08-21, 11:58 AM

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?
That's the way all the really fun and exciting encounters I've played run, so I heavily based my own DM style when creating original content. IMO even a Deadly 'Boss' encounter should have at least 3 monsters in it. Medium and Hard encounters should be in the 5-6 range, by default.

I prefer to steal from or convert older module content. But even then, I'll avoid solo monsters whenever I can. Unless they have something tactically interesting to do, and/or are very dangerous.
Like Nightscale in Forge of Fury (3e version). She's already powerful enough as is, but when you add in a her tactical advantage, she's crazy powerful. Not sure what she's like in the YP version, but spoilered this anyway because this encounter is in the book.

Zalabim

2017-08-22, 01:42 AM

Table dependent, but that would just mean that AoE is even stronger. Can't speak for your experiences, but in mine casters shine when they can hit a large number of creatures with one spell.

Regardless, this doesn't affect my point in any way. Casters gain more and stronger abilities than martials the higher they go. And this is another concern about feats. A martial can specialize with feats to a greater degree than most casters, since Metamagic is no longer accessible via feats. Fewer feats means less martial specialization.

What if the enemies aren't all humanoids with neither ranged attacks nor magical support that all pile in from the tightest formation possible? What if the enemies are varied and intelligent instead? Of course it affects your point. Some tables set up encounters that vastly favor spells and some tables don't. There's no universal truth here.

Elric VIII

2017-08-22, 02:12 AM

What if the enemies aren't all humanoids with neither ranged attacks nor magical support that all pile in from the tightest formation possible? What if the enemies are varied and intelligent instead? Of course it affects your point. Some tables set up encounters that vastly favor spells and some tables don't. There's no universal truth here.

In my experience, the more complexity you add to the enemy's tactics, the more you widen the gap between martial and magical effectiveness.

For example:
1) Obstructive terrain can be overcome by flight, but martial will have difficulty maneuvering (and finding enemies if you have fog of war).

2) Hit-and-run tactics make it harder for martial to bring about their full damage with how readied actions work, but spells are not affected as much.

3) invisible/hiding enemies can be detected or flushed out with spells effectively.

There are much fewer scenarios that disadvantage casters. Focus-fire, surprise attacks, and AMF work, but only AMF is more effective against casters than martials.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-22, 06:54 AM

There are much fewer scenarios that disadvantage casters. Focus-fire, surprise attacks, and AMF work, but only AMF is more effective against casters than martials.

Don't forget disinformation (illusions, or just tricks) actions to make the party expend precious resources on targets other than the real main villain. Those will disproportionately effect those with daily resource effects like spells.

ZorroGames

2017-08-22, 07:23 AM

Oh good, another thread devolving into a spellcaster-v.-martial headbutting contest. I'm sure this time we will finally resolve this issue once and for all. :smallconfused:

FIVE Gold Stars to this comment!

Exactly.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-22, 08:39 AM

Well, the feat situation actually is related to martials vs casters. Plenty of martial builds depend on specific feats, in contrast with caster builds which are more independent. Additionally, casters only ever have one casting stat unless they multiclass, and can afford to have lower AC and HP than martials since they tend to stay in the back. As a result, casters more often max their casting stat before martials max their attack stat, casters are less likely to be MAD, and casters tend to be able to afford more feats than anyone who doesn't get bonus feats.

I've more often seen casters pick up resilient (constitution) and the like, though this is another situation where game mechanics make certain choices better than others. One of war caster or resilient con is almost mandatory for most caster builds.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-22, 09:33 AM

Within the confines of this thread, I've seen it suggested that spellcasters are-- both more MAD than martials, since everyone needs CON, everyone needs either DEX or the STR to have heavy armor, and the spellcasters need their casting stat, -- and that they are less likely to be MAD. I think clearly there is some differences of opinion on what it takes to be a successful caster.

As to Resilient:Con and War Caster, one or both are needed if you focus on concentration spells. Regardless, I think the reason that spellcasters max out their primary stat first has more to do with the fact that martials have more feats which are flat-out better than a straight up +2 stat. The caster has very few feat options (excluding the ones which open up concentration spells) that are that useful (as in, gets used almost every round, like +2 to one's primary stat usually does).

Elric VIII

2017-08-22, 05:54 PM

Don't forget disinformation (illusions, or just tricks) actions to make the party expend previous resources on targets other than the real main villain. Those will disproportionately effect those with daily resource effects like spells.

That's actually a good one, but it can also hurt barbarians, monks, and half/third casters as well. Long rest abilities are not the sole domain of full casters.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-23, 06:39 AM

That's actually a good one, but it can also hurt barbarians, monks, and half/third casters as well. Long rest abilities are not the sole domain of full casters.

Yes. just like focus-fire and surprise attacks. Are we only talking about things which only effect spellcasters? If so, why? Even grapple aren't caster-specific. I'm guessing only counterspell, stealing of components, and AMF would count.

Elric VIII

2017-08-23, 08:44 PM

Yes. just like focus-fire and surprise attacks. Are we only talking about things which only effect spellcasters? If so, why? Even grapple aren't caster-specific. I'm guessing only counterspell, stealing of components, and AMF would count.

I thought we were talking about how the game is not balanced at all levels. My point with the first post was that as casters gain levels their versatility increases beyond that of martial and partial casters. Fighters and co. get better at their main shtick with some small increase in options, whereas casters get a huge increase in options.

This means that the things that challenge a martial character do not need to take into account dozens of options. Coupled with the fact that counters to casters can work just as well against martials gives you a game that will not be balanced.

Beelzebubba

2017-08-24, 02:57 AM

So wait... Feats OR attribute increase?

Beelzebubba

2017-08-24, 03:00 AM

Someone reply to my incredibly troll-y rant from a long time ago.

Let's see if we can bring it back to indignant posts about feats and stuff.

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 12:17 PM

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

Play 4e instead?

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 12:20 PM

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

I like making tactical or strategic choices in play.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-24, 12:33 PM

I like making tactical or strategic choices in play.
I don't get why everyone wants to have all the options all the time. I haven't seen a single character concept that simply needs multiple feats to exist from a story perspective, outside of 'most balls-out powerful things ever'. Sentinel-PAM-GWM is powerful in concert, and ought to cost what it does (sidestepping the balance argument on GWM for a moment).

This is like screaming that everyone deserves proficiency in every skill, and I'll back up that hyperbole a bit by pointing at the 'Skilled' feat. The system absolutely functions with the split, allows you to specialize, make meaningful choices in your development, and further differentiate between other people in your same class. That's a good thing.

Pex

2017-08-24, 03:07 PM

I don't get why everyone wants to have all the options all the time. I haven't seen a single character concept that simply needs multiple feats to exist from a story perspective, outside of 'most balls-out powerful things ever'. Sentinel-PAM-GWM is powerful in concert, and ought to cost what it does (sidestepping the balance argument on GWM for a moment).

This is like screaming that everyone deserves proficiency in every skill, and I'll back up that hyperbole a bit by pointing at the 'Skilled' feat. The system absolutely functions with the split, allows you to specialize, make meaningful choices in your development, and further differentiate between other people in your same class. That's a good thing.

Because the math of the game matters. Of course Sentinel-PAM-GWN is powerful. That's why many players take it and not worry about the delay in ASI. That cost is worth it. However, Actor, Keen Mind, Resilient (Intelligence), etc. aren't as powerful and are less likely to be taken because they're not worth the ASI. They might be taken by a Variant Human since it doesn't cost the character anything, but because of Bounded Accuracy +1 to your relevant ability modifier is a big deal. It's a 4 level wait between each choice. That's a long time in terms of real world playing not having what you want.

The cause of the angst is 5E's implementation of Point Buy. It enforces cookie-cutter characters. A tiefling barbarian, a hill dwarf sorcerer, an elf paladin. They just don't happen. If they do happen the player isn't even getting an 18 in their prime until 8th level with no feat, 12th level if they want one and only one feat, Fighter excepted. It's not a tragedy not having an 18, but it's also not an atrocity to want one. Dice rolling doesn't guarantee anything, but the lucky chance is there.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-24, 03:21 PM

Because the math of the game matters. Of course Sentinel-PAM-GWN is powerful. That's why many players take it and not worry about the delay in ASI. That cost is worth it. However, Actor, Keen Mind, Resilient (Intelligence), etc. aren't as powerful and are less likely to be taken because they're not worth the ASI. They might be taken by a Variant Human since it doesn't cost the character anything, but because of Bounded Accuracy +1 to your relevant ability modifier is a big deal. It's a 4 level wait between each choice. That's a long time in terms of real world playing not having what you want.

The cause of the angst is 5E's implementation of Point Buy. It enforces cookie-cutter characters. A tiefling barbarian, a hill dwarf sorcerer, an elf paladin. They just don't happen. If they do happen the player isn't even getting an 18 in their prime until 8th level with no feat, 12th level if they want one and only one feat, Fighter excepted. It's not a tragedy not having an 18, but it's also not an atrocity to want one. Dice rolling doesn't guarantee anything, but the lucky chance is there.
This, I can agree with. The issue, and one I've been trying to create an entire subsystem just to handle better, is that there's really no incentive to prioritize anything outside of combat capabilities unless you're the team's utility caster or skill monkey. And even then few ever would seriously hamper their fighting strength to do so. Worse, for most classes, these are the only opportunities after your first level to improve in any of these areas beyond proficiency bonus increases or synergistic ASI's.

Which is to say, only a crazy person would ever take Actor without an odd Charisma in a Charisma casting class. And that sucks, because Actor's awesome for roleplaying.

I just don't believe feat bloat can fix this. Most players will take synergistic combat-oriented feats up until the last few levels, if they run out of things at all. You'd still almost never take Actor as a fighter if you haven't picked up Alert, Tough, Sentinel, an appropriate weapon feat or two, even things like Savage Attacker and Dungeon Delver.

I'd rather divorce non-combat feats from the list entirely and offer them at certain levels as an upgrade to their base competency in the social/exploration parts of the game (minus the half ASI bump, naturally). When you give the fighter no other choices but those sorts of feats, they'll take the cool option because it's cool and they like the flavor.

Obviously, I need a lot more than what's in the PHB right now and things don't line up perfectly. It's a work in progress.

Kryx

2017-08-24, 03:25 PM

I'd rather divorce non-combat feats from the list entirely and offer them at certain levels as an upgrade to their base competency in the social/exploration parts of the game (minus the half ASI bump, naturally). When you give the fighter no other choices but those sorts of feats, they'll take the cool option because it's cool and they like the flavor.
I did exactly this. Check out "Traits" on my houserules. It's not perfect, but at least offers the opportunity for feats from other pillars.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-24, 03:37 PM

I did exactly this. Check out "Traits" on my houserules. It's not perfect, but at least offers the opportunity for feats from other pillars.
I'll need to take a good look tonight. I might simply direct my players to you when I'm ready to trial run the system, that could save me a ton of development time I've been dreading.

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 04:30 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-08-24, 04:52 PM

It is not a crime if certain feats are not as popular or as "efficient" mechanics wise. Some things just have flavor I want. And my Mountain Dwarf Monk is doing fine even though it is far from optimized and hits zero hps around once a game when there are only squishy characters in a party and "hit and run" leaving the wizard, sorceror, and/or warlock hanging in the breeze is really not an option. The game where there was another (wood elf) monk, a half-elf paladin, and a dwarf barbarian in the mix was heavenly!

Love the role play with NPCs (no accents, especially Scottish for my characters,) other players, and the DMs.

See, this is what I'm talking about. And it gives me an idea.

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 04:55 PM

snip

Which is to say, only a crazy person would ever take Actor without an odd Charisma in a Charisma casting class. And that sucks, because Actor's awesome for roleplaying.

I just don't believe feat bloat can fix this. Most players will take synergistic combat-oriented feats up until the last few levels, if they run out of things at all. You'd still almost never take Actor as a fighter if you haven't picked up Alert, Tough, Sentinel, an appropriate weapon feat or two, even things like Savage Attacker and Dungeon Delver.

Snip

Call me crazy then because other than one weapon feat (ST or DE based) those show up in none of my active or "reserve" (unrecoverable death situations) builds.

Sh. Sh. OR Cbe for DE fighter; MAM or HAM, and SM for the STfighter.

MI for my variant Human SCAG Arcana Cleric at first level but mostly for flavor of a guy in love with divine and arcane casting.

Alert, Tough (niche build someday,) Sentinel, Savage Attacker, Durable, even DD are not on my planning list.

I design the character first (my killers - monks, and fighters, have a flavor reason for their mayhem; my casters Clerics and... well whatever I eventually build... are more than MMM (Magic Murder Machines) because they have a role in life outside of hack and slash.)

My LN MD Monk will work with most any character to defeat Evil and, lesser, "Chaos" plots. Risk his life outrageously for a Kobold or Goblin character? That is highly unlikely. Help or assist them in combat sure. Climb out on rotting leather ropes over lava? Who do you want to get your share?

Another Dwarf, sure, even if I dislike the character. Human, elf, half-elf, sigh, "for the team" yes.

All my characters have those type of dynamics worked before play.

Going Archery/Sh. Sh./CBE just to have the cool feats for a bland character? Not so much.

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 04:58 PM

See, this is what I'm talking about. And it gives me an idea.

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.

Maybe but currently I am limited to AL games.

How it was done would make the difference in how viable it was but in theory it should work.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-24, 05:11 PM

Call me crazy then because other than one weapon feat (ST or DE based) those show up in none of my active or "reserve" (unrecoverable death situations) builds.

Sh. Sh. OR Cbe for DE fighter; MAM or HAM, and SM for the STfighter.

MI for my variant Human SCAG Arcana Cleric at first level but mostly for flavor of a guy in love with divine and arcane casting.

Alert, Tough (niche build someday,) Sentinel, Savage Attacker, Durable, even DD are not on my planning list.

I design the character first (my killers - monks, and fighters, have a flavor reason for their mayhem; my casters Clerics and... well whatever I eventually build... are more than MMM (Magic Murder Machines) because they have a role in life outside of hack and slash.)

My LN MD Monk will work with most any character to defeat Evil and, lesser, "Chaos" plots. Risk his life outrageously for a Kobold or Goblin character? That is highly unlikely. Help or assist them in combat sure. Climb out on rotting leather ropes over lava? Who do you want to get your share?

Another Dwarf, sure, even if I dislike the character. Human, elf, half-elf, sigh, "for the team" yes.

All my characters have those type of dynamics worked before play.

Going Archery/Sh. Sh./CBE just to have the cool feats for a bland character? Not so much.
I don't either, but it's due to opportunity cost. If I got freebie feats all over, I'd probably take all those, though, outside of niche dynamic characters where I just have to have something for the flavor. I applaud players that do this, and wish they didn't have to be mechanically punished for it. Being cool shouldn't be this limiting.

My point was that in a game where you get tons of feats, a player still wouldn't be pressed into grabbing those neat feats over the more boring ones because the boring ones don't contribute to their combat abilities. 3.x is exactly like that, and it's an easy reference for why things end up that way. Whether players mean to or not, they're going to lean towards effectiveness over flavor. Newbies that start with flavor get scared off when those choices leave them wanting in a fight and they end up getting killed, or watching a more boring character build have more fun. Extra feats won't stop this.

This is a gamist problem. Your roleplaying can be great without the need for the crunch of feats, or even abilities or skills. I want to create a proper incentive to lead more players into fluffy roleplay through the gates of crunchy statistics.

Kryx

2017-08-24, 05:32 PM

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.
This is what I do and I mention it just above. :)

Pex

2017-08-24, 05:52 PM

It is not a crime if certain feats are not as popular or as "efficient" mechanics wise. Some things just have flavor I want. And my Mountain Dwarf Monk is doing fine even though it is far from optimized and hits zero hps around once a game when there are only squishy characters in a party and "hit and run" leaving the wizard, sorceror, and/or warlock hanging in the breeze is really not an option. The game where there was another (wood elf) monk, a half-elf paladin, and a dwarf barbarian in the mix was heavenly!

Love the role play with NPCs (no accents, especially Scottish for my characters,) other players, and the DMs.

Certainly. Bounded Accuracy, to its credit, allows for non-optimal builds to work well enough but only so far. You don't absolutely need an 18 in your prime at 8th level, but for those who want it and they're not wrong to want it and are still capable of enjoying all the roleplaying with NPCs, it gets in the way of feat choices and people aren't liking that. To them it's not a necessary game design.

ZorroGames

2017-08-24, 05:58 PM

Certainly. Bounded Accuracy, to its credit, allows for non-optimal builds to work well enough but only so far. You don't absolutely need an 18 in your prime at 8th level, but for those who want it and they're not wrong to want it and are still capable of enjoying all the roleplaying with NPCs, it gets in the way of feat choices and people aren't liking that. To them it's not a necessary game design.

I understand your position (I think) but I see no problem in "ASI or Feat" choices. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree (hate that phrase) because I think it is a style of play preference.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-24, 06:51 PM

This is what I do and I mention it just above. :)

Ah, whoops, hard to keep track of all the different terms. "Traits," that works.

Pex

2017-08-24, 09:48 PM

I understand your position (I think) but I see no problem in "ASI or Feat" choices. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree (hate that phrase) because I think it is a style of play preference.

The rate of optimization is a play preference. The choice of ASI or Feat is forced upon us.

It's not a game malfunction thing. With Point Buy players can have their feat and 18 by level 8 in their stereotypical classes, two feats if Variant Human. I guess my issue is not really faulting ASI or Feat but 5E's Point Buy implementation. Forbidding an 18 at 1st level means tieflings are bards or warlocks, never barbarians. Halflings are rogues with the occasional Dex fighter, never wizards. Dragonborn are fighters or paladins, never rogues. Allowing for an 18 might not change the racial stereotypes, but it leaves more room for selecting feats. The golden 20 can wait a long while.

Caveat: With dice rolling and getting lucky to get an 18, it is tempting to put it in your +2 racial stat to have the 20 right away. Dice rolling can lead to stereotypes too. My theory is if you do get an 18 a dragonborn player might put it in WI to play a cleric. The 14 he rolled goes into ST to make it 16 and be a competent warrior-type cleric. If he's lucky and has a 13, that goes in CO. Level 4 then becomes the easiest choice: Resilient (Con). Level 8 is tempting for ST to 18 but other feats are still viable because while he fights it's not necessarily every round. If he does make ST 18 level 12 is ripe for a feat. A 20 isn't necessary. Point being, rolling and having the 18 already allows for putting it in a non-stereotype class prime and be flexible with everything else on what you want to do. Even if your highest roll is only 16 you can still do it and get by well enough as proven by Point Buy giving everyone a 16 (or 17) in their prime with racial modifier. Level 4 makes it 18 level 8 the feat or vice versa.

However, while related to thread topic it's close to leaving it, so I'll leave it there.

Willie the Duck

2017-08-25, 06:45 AM

The rate of optimization is a play preference. The choice of ASI or Feat is forced upon us.

Or instead of 'forced,' you could just as easily say that you 'get' the option of a choice, instead of being forced to take one or the other.

It's not a game malfunction thing. With Point Buy players can have their feat and 18 by level 8 in their stereotypical classes, two feats if Variant Human. I guess my issue is not really faulting ASI or Feat but 5E's Point Buy implementation. Forbidding an 18 at 1st level means tieflings are bards or warlocks, never barbarians. Halflings are rogues with the occasional Dex fighter, never wizards. Dragonborn are fighters or paladins, never rogues. Allowing for an 18 might not change the racial stereotypes, but it leaves more room for selecting feats. The golden 20 can wait a long while.

Caveat: With dice rolling and getting lucky to get an 18, it is tempting to put it in your +2 racial stat to have the 20 right away. Dice rolling can lead to stereotypes too. My theory is if you do get an 18 a dragonborn player might put it in WI to play a cleric. The 14 he rolled goes into ST to make it 16 and be a competent warrior-type cleric. If he's lucky and has a 13, that goes in CO. Level 4 then becomes the easiest choice: Resilient (Con). Level 8 is tempting for ST to 18 but other feats are still viable because while he fights it's not necessarily every round. If he does make ST 18 level 12 is ripe for a feat. A 20 isn't necessary. Point being, rolling and having the 18 already allows for putting it in a non-stereotype class prime and be flexible with everything else on what you want to do. Even if your highest roll is only 16 you can still do it and get by well enough as proven by Point Buy giving everyone a 16 (or 17) in their prime with racial modifier. Level 4 makes it 18 level 8 the feat or vice versa.

However, while related to thread topic it's close to leaving it, so I'll leave it there.

I'd call that directly related. The thing is, what this really tells me is that, yes indeed deciding to play A)no-feats, point buy, B) feats, point-buy, C) no feats, rolled stats, and D) feats, rolled stats make for different play experiences, with different choices being sub-/optimal. And frankly, as much as it would be great if they could make a perfectly, unbelievably cross-balanced game where that wasn't the case, I don't think that ever was in the cards.

ZorroGames

2017-08-25, 06:58 AM

Forced? No, I choose to play cross stereotype because of my life is a contradiction to what stereotypes mean and has been from birth. My Mountain Dwarf Monk was a great introduction/learning tool to 5e. It taught me that "common knowledge" on forums is a trap option to the mind.

The more I play with possible character builds the more I am attracted to optimizing flavor while not destroying playability.

Have been since OD&D when I bought my white box booklets. Now it is easier to do that and actually less work.

Always a pleasure yo hear you view, Pex, especially when we disagree. Iron sharpening Iron moments. One should always read/listen to viewpoints different from one's own even if the net result is to further cement one's views.

Theodoxus

2017-08-25, 07:34 AM

The thing is, what this really tells me is that, yes indeed deciding to play A)no-feats, point buy, B) feats, point-buy, C) no feats, rolled stats, and D) feats, rolled stats make for different play experiences, with different choices being sub-/optimal. And frankly, as much as it would be great if they could make a perfectly, unbelievably cross-balanced game where that wasn't the case, I don't think that ever was in the cards.

I never participated in the D&D NEXT playtests, and was only peripherally aware of the development until early 2014 when it was coming closer to release. But I do recall that we were promised lots of "dials" to tune the game to our playstyle; that it could go from easy mode to hard mode depending on what switches to turn on or off. And the PHB had 5 basic variants: Point Buy/Standard Array; humans; "uncommon" races; mutliclassing; and feats.

It wasn't until the DMG came out with the Dungeon Master's Workshop section that added a lot more variant rules that you really got the levels of power to finetune the game from gritty realism to high fantasy sorcery.

But no where was it ever stated that any official variant would be balanced against any other. In fact, we're specifically told in the DMW to "let your imagination run wild" and trust me, that is NEVER balanced :smallwink:

All that to say, you're correct Willie. WotC never had perfect balance across all the various options and variants in mind when they built the foundation for the game. It was, and is, expected that the DM would handle any real or perceived imbalance on the fly with player input. There's no way WotC could foresee everything a DM does... they wash their hands and hope the experience "improves the game and is liked by the players."

Willie the Duck

2017-08-25, 09:09 AM

All that to say, you're correct Willie. WotC never had perfect balance across all the various options and variants in mind when they built the foundation for the game. It was, and is, expected that the DM would handle any real or perceived imbalance on the fly with player input. There's no way WotC could foresee everything a DM does... they wash their hands and hope the experience "improves the game and is liked by the players."

I'm not sure that it is just washing their hands of the matter. I think there is also the idea that perhaps this belief that absolute, pure and unyielding balance between races and classes at all times and in all places as the absolute most important thing for the game to get right ...is something that really strident online voices consider to be the case, while many of the more casual gamers are more like, 'yeah, wizards probably will dominate at the highest levels, and playing a Halfling barbarian probably won't be as good as a half-orc one, etc. etc., and that's fine, as long as it isn't horribly out of whack like 3e fighters or something.'

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-25, 09:41 AM

I'm not sure that it is just washing their hands of the matter. I think there is also the idea that perhaps this belief that absolute, pure and unyielding balance between races and classes at all times and in all places as the absolute most important thing for the game to get right ...is something that really strident online voices consider to be the case, while many of the more casual gamers are more like, 'yeah, wizards probably will dominate at the highest levels, and playing a Halfling barbarian probably won't be as good as a half-orc one, etc. etc., and that's fine, as long as it isn't horribly out of whack like 3e fighters or something.'

Balance is a good thing. It's not the only good thing, or even the most important good thing. Often there are tradeoffs between balance, variety, and other factors, and some of these are subjective. Designers (and players) have to decide for themselves where they're comfortable putting the optimum for a system or table. There's not an objective optimum balance between numerical balance and the other factors. Just because some people put it in a different place doesn't mean they're wrong (or that you are). Both can be right for different groups.

There's also the idea of a noise floor. This is the idea that since no one plays optimally and different builds react differently as the circumstances change, there's a certain point at which things are balanced "enough." We can all agree that if one build does 32.49 DPR in a white-room test and another does 32.48 DPR in the same test, they're within acceptable margins. My belief is that the noise floor is actually quite a bit higher than that, and higher than many of the imbalances that are so contentious on these forums. In addition, the noise floor varies from table to table (because different people care about different things).

By comparison, the martial/caster disparity in 3e was well beyond the noise floor. Only highly-optimized (uber-chargers, mainly) builds could keep up with the challenges needed to challenge T1 casters, and then only under certain circumstances. That level of disparity is gone. For me, most things in 5e are at or below the noise floor. Not everything, but many or even most things.

Tanarii

2017-08-25, 10:38 AM

There's also the idea of a noise floor. This is the idea that since no one plays optimally and different builds react differently as the circumstances change, there's a certain point at which things are balanced "enough." We can all agree that if one build does 32.49 DPR in a white-room test and another does 32.48 DPR in the same test, they're within acceptable margins. My belief is that the noise floor is actually quite a bit higher than that, and higher than many of the imbalances that are so contentious on these forums. In addition, the noise floor varies from table to table (because different people care about different things).
I like that. Noise floor is a good name for it. And sometimes a 'lack' of table variance, as in multiple tables noticing something is off and commenting on it is a great indicator that something doesn't pass the noise floor test. Especially if it's new players that aren't forum readers and haven't bought into group-think yet. And also, because human beings, usually violation of noise floor is about perception and assumption, not hard analysis.

An off topic example is second level Moon Druids. Players are often aghast when they first see on in action. On topic examples are Feats like GWM and PAM are routinely viewed as powerful when first seen in action, and others like Actor (in a more hack-n-slash table) or Keen Mind (in a non-wilderness focused table) are usually viewed as weak on first read. IMO those aren't just internet group-think balance judgements. It doesn't mean they're correct*, but it does mean that they arise independently.

(*I happen to think analysis shows GWM and PAM are too powerful, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this comment.)

PhoenixPhyre

2017-08-25, 10:50 AM

I like that. Noise floor is a good name for it. And sometimes a 'lack' of table variance, as in multiple tables noticing something is off and commenting on it is a great indicator that something doesn't pass the noise floor test. Especially if it's new players that aren't forum readers and haven't bought into group-think yet. And also, because human beings, usually violation of noise floor is about perception and assumption, not hard analysis.

I agree that when new players comment on how powerful something is independently, it's a sign that something's off. Not a sure sign, and not a required sign, but a sign. I also very much agree that perceived imbalance is often worse than measurable imbalance that hasn't made itself known. For example, a standard PAM/GWM build that's optimized well but played horribly will be less of a problem than a less-imbalanced build played very well. I've said this before, but one of the most OP characters I've ever had at a table was a halfling divination wizard with the Lucky feat and no damaging spells. The player was very very good at placing just the right control spell or odd utility spell where it would break encounters wide open. Yes, Lucky is strong, but I've had other people for whom it was just a bonus. This player weaponized it.

An off topic example is second level Moon Druids. Players are often aghast when they first see on in action. On topic examples are Feats like GWM and PAM are routinely viewed as powerful when first seen in action, and others like Actor (in a more hack-n-slash table) or Keen Mind (in a non-wilderness focused table) are usually viewed as weak on first read. IMO those aren't just internet group-think balance judgements. It doesn't mean they're correct*, but it does mean that they arise independently.

(*I happen to think analysis shows GWM and PAM are too powerful, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this comment.)

True. Still, I've seen more people take the fluffy feats (Actor, Linguist, etc) than the hard combat ones, but that is probably sample bias.

Pex

2017-08-25, 11:47 AM

Or instead of 'forced,' you could just as easily say that you 'get' the option of a choice, instead of being forced to take one or the other.

I'd call that directly related. The thing is, what this really tells me is that, yes indeed deciding to play A)no-feats, point buy, B) feats, point-buy, C) no feats, rolled stats, and D) feats, rolled stats make for different play experiences, with different choices being sub-/optimal. And frankly, as much as it would be great if they could make a perfectly, unbelievably cross-balanced game where that wasn't the case, I don't think that ever was in the cards.

I never participated in the D&D NEXT playtests, and was only peripherally aware of the development until early 2014 when it was coming closer to release. But I do recall that we were promised lots of "dials" to tune the game to our playstyle; that it could go from easy mode to hard mode depending on what switches to turn on or off. And the PHB had 5 basic variants: Point Buy/Standard Array; humans; "uncommon" races; mutliclassing; and feats.

It wasn't until the DMG came out with the Dungeon Master's Workshop section that added a lot more variant rules that you really got the levels of power to finetune the game from gritty realism to high fantasy sorcery.

But no where was it ever stated that any official variant would be balanced against any other. In fact, we're specifically told in the DMW to "let your imagination run wild" and trust me, that is NEVER balanced :smallwink:

All that to say, you're correct Willie. WotC never had perfect balance across all the various options and variants in mind when they built the foundation for the game. It was, and is, expected that the DM would handle any real or perceived imbalance on the fly with player input. There's no way WotC could foresee everything a DM does... they wash their hands and hope the experience "improves the game and is liked by the players."

I like this perspective. The combinations of various effects to set your tone is intriguing, accepted an on purpose 5E design choice. If one has a problem with Feat or ASI, is it related to what you want the tone of the campaign to be? I see it fit fine with gritty realism since that scenario is all about hard choices of resources. Such a campaign could easily not have feats at all. The closer you get to high fantasy sorcery is where making the decision becomes more of a burden than choice between interesting options, adding in my own bias a burden if you want non-stereotypical race/class combinations using Point Buy.

I know I like high fantasy sorcery and don't like gritty realism. That will steer me into a different perspective than those who are opposite. It fits into many topics such as the "Why the hate for win buttons" thread in the General Forum.