D&D Next Feats?

[Quirken]

Looking at the new playtest, I'm having a disagreement with my DM, and I was hoping to get a few new people to weigh in.

My DM is actually reading this the way I *want* to read it, but I feel like it's not RAW.

Right now, feats are an optional replacement for your ability score bonus every few levels.

The wording in question:

You can increase one score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. ... Alternatively, when you reach one of the noted levels, you can forgo improving any of your ability scores to take a feat"

The question is about the meaning of 'any.' Does forgoing improving 'any' mean you get NO ability score increase and you get ONE feat? Or does it mean you have two ability score increases, and you are able to forgo zero, one, or both to take zero, one, or two feats?

This is a huge deal, as it means the difference between 4 feats and 8 feats by level 20 (on average. Fighter would get either 7 or 14).

[DeltaEmil]

Your options are:

Gain 1 Feat - or - Increase one ability score by 2 points - or - Increase two ability scores by 1 point.

Feats are intended to be optional, which is why they are mentioned as an alternative to ability score improvement.

[Quirken]

Feats are intended to be optional, which is why they are mentioned as an alternative to ability score improvement.

I know they're supposed to be optional, but reducing the number of available feats from the 7 in 3.5e to 4 in 5th is just a step from permanently removing all feats.

Feats were the biggest option available for character customization, and by far my favorite thing about 3.5. (No, I didn't like that the feat balance was not good or that there were a ton of very similar feats. But the feat mechanic itself was wonderful)

If indeed the new system is that you don't get to choose until 4th level, AND you only get a total of four choices, I really don't like that. Especially because that means most games I play in, I'll have precisely one choice, maybe two.

I think it was probably intended the way you described, but my DM disagrees, and I want to be convinced my DM is right

[obryn]

I know they're supposed to be optional, but reducing the number of available feats from the 7 in 3.5e to 4 in 5th is just a step from permanently removing all feats.

Feats were the biggest option available for character customization, and by far my favorite thing about 3.5. (No, I didn't like that the feat balance was not good or that there were a ton of very similar feats. But the feat mechanic itself was wonderful)

If indeed the new system is that you don't get to choose until 4th level, AND you only get a total of four choices, I really don't like that. Especially because that means most games I play in, I'll have precisely one choice, maybe two.

I think it was probably intended the way you described, but my DM disagrees, and I want to be convinced my DM is right

Have you looked at the actual feats in Next? Each one is the equivalent of a 3.5 feat tree.

Pushing feats off until 4th level is part of the drive to simplify character creation. It means that a "basic set" doesn't need to deal with them, a new PC can be built very quickly, and it eases new players into their characters.

-O

[Scow2]

Have you looked at the actual feats in Next? Each one is the equivalent of a 3.5 feat tree.

Pushing feats off until 4th level is part of the drive to simplify character creation. It means that a "basic set" doesn't need to deal with them, a new PC can be built very quickly, and it eases new players into their characters.

-O

It simplifies character creation, but completely defangs character advancement. Yeah, a feat can be powerful... but not without the attributes to back them up!

[SowZ]

Have you looked at the actual feats in Next? Each one is the equivalent of a 3.5 feat tree.

Pushing feats off until 4th level is part of the drive to simplify character creation. It means that a "basic set" doesn't need to deal with them, a new PC can be built very quickly, and it eases new players into their characters.

-O

That's not true for all of them. Some of the feats really suck.

[obryn]

That's not true for all of them. Some of the feats really suck.

The shield one is a stinker (unless you don't know how to use a shield). Most of the rest seem pretty solid.

-O

[Quirken]

Have you looked at the actual feats in Next? Each one is the equivalent of a 3.5 feat tree.

Pushing feats off until 4th level is part of the drive to simplify character creation. It means that a "basic set" doesn't need to deal with them, a new PC can be built very quickly, and it eases new players into their characters.

-O

That's exactly the problem - they're sacrificing customization for speed. Feats themselves are now an optional feature, which is fine by me, but optional shouldn't mean "simplify all the things!" It should mean "If you want it more streamlined, and quicker character creation, do it this way, otherwise, here's an alternate way to do it!"

New players don't have to take feats, and get some nice stat boosts. OK. But people who like customization and like the nitty gritty of character optimization are now left with... not a whole lot of flexibility.

Yes, the feats themselves are more powerful, which is cool. They match whole feat chains, which is great if you were following a feat chain. But a large number of the really cool feats in 3.5 were one-off feats and had non-feat prerequisites.

That's not even going into balance changes like Scow2 mentioned.

[obryn]

That's exactly the problem - they're sacrificing customization for speed. Feats themselves are now an optional feature, which is fine by me, but optional shouldn't mean "simplify all the things!" It should mean "If you want it more streamlined, and quicker character creation, do it this way, otherwise, here's an alternate way to do it!"

New players don't have to take feats, and get some nice stat boosts. OK. But people who like customization and like the nitty gritty of character optimization are now left with... not a whole lot of flexibility.

Oh, there will probably be some modular bits here and there. But the current goal is to simplify levels 1-2 or 1-3, then recommend experienced players start at higher level if that's the experience they want.

I was very much not-on-board with this, but after looking at some other good D&Ds like the Rules Compendium, I'm down with it.

Yes, the feats themselves are more powerful, which is cool. They match whole feat chains, which is great if you were following a feat chain. But a large number of the really cool feats in 3.5 were one-off feats and had non-feat prerequisites.

That's not even going into balance changes like Scow2 mentioned.

Yeah, there's no doubt that there will be less customization than in 3e or 4e. That's by design. OTOH, there is more customization than 1e, 2e, BECMI/RC, etc.

-O

[Quirken]

Oh, there will probably be some modular bits here and there. But the current goal is to simplify levels 1-2 or 1-3, then recommend experienced players start at higher level if that's the experience they want.

My concern is that after around level 13, in my experience D&D's flavor has changed dramatically as characters become super-powered. After around that point, the emphasis is on save-or-die rather than grittiness or fair fights. (And you also tend to have a TON of similar abilities and have to choose between them. That was especially bad in 4th, which is one of the main reasons I avoid it.)

If they fix the upper levels so it's not so gear dependent and monsters don't rely on save-or-die so much, I could be sold on delaying advancement.

Yeah, there's no doubt that there will be less customization than in 3e or 4e. That's by design. OTOH, there is more customization than 1e, 2e, BECMI/RC, etc.

-O

:(


I kinda liked the way feats chains worked in Iron Heroes. There were "general" feats which were the non-chain feats.

Then there were mastery feats. Each class had certain aptitudes ("mastery") for families of mastery feats, but no other prerequisites. You had to take the first one in a chain. After that, there were 3-9 more feats, each with a slightly higher mastery requirement. But you could take them in any order, so long as you had the base feat and a high enough mastery score. Some classes never got access to the higher tier ones.

It basically boiled down to "easier to pick feats, but still a lot of flexibility"

Rather than here, where they make it easier by reducing flexibility.

Another thing they could do to appease me is offer a bunch of alternate class features. I'd certainly prefer there be a plethora of ACFs rather than a ton of classes like in 3.5. Pathfinder does a pretty good job of this.

[obryn]

My concern is that after around level 13, in my experience D&D's flavor has changed dramatically as characters become super-powered. After around that point, the emphasis is on save-or-die rather than grittiness or fair fights.

If they fix the upper levels so it's not so gear dependent and monsters don't rely on save-or-die so much, I could be sold on delaying advancement.

From what I can tell so far, this looks to be the case. There's a much flatter power curve as characters advance to higher levels, part and parcel of the "bounded accuracy" bit. Also, most save-or-suck stuff gives you a save at the end of every turn it's affecting you.

I kinda liked the way feats chains worked in Iron Heroes. There were "general" feats which were the non-chain feats.

Then there were mastery feats. Each class had certain aptitudes ("mastery") for families of mastery feats, but no other prerequisites. You had to take the first one in a chain. After that, there were 3-9 more feats, each with a slightly higher mastery requirement. But you could take them in any order, so long as you had the base feat and a high enough mastery score. Some classes never got access to the higher tier ones.

It basically boiled down to "easier to pick feats, but still a lot of flexibility"

Rather than here, where they make it easier by reducing flexibility.

After 13 years of 3e and 4e, I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything they do to cut back on feat bloat is a positive thing. So I'm not 100% with you here.

But for what it's worth, it's completely possible we'll see short feat chains down the line - we already have one, sort of, in the spellcasting feats.

Another thing they could do to appease me is offer a bunch of alternate class features. I'd certainly prefer there be a plethora of ACFs rather than a ton of classes like in 3.5. Pathfinder does a pretty good job of this.

We do have that already, to an extent, but bundled into subclasses.

-O

[Scow2]

Another thing they could do to appease me is offer a bunch of alternate class features. I'd certainly prefer there be a plethora of ACFs rather than a ton of classes like in 3.5. Pathfinder does a pretty good job of this.

Well... except that by and large, all the ACFs are significantly worse than what you're giving up, and/or permanently tied to a complete stinker (With a few exceptions, like Synthesist Summoner and Unpronouncable Monk)

From what I can tell so far, this looks to be the case. There's a much flatter power curve as characters advance to higher levels, part and parcel of the "bounded accuracy" bit. Also, most save-or-suck stuff gives you a save at the end of every turn it's affecting you.


After 13 years of 3e and 4e, I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything they do to cut back on feat bloat is a positive thing. So I'm not 100% with you here.

I hope the save-or-suck thing is a case of Player/Monster asymmetry.

And as for feat bloat - I think the problem in past editions was "Too many feats, not enough slots to put them into"

[Quirken]

After 13 years of 3e and 4e, I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything they do to cut back on feat bloat is a positive thing. So I'm not 100% with you here.

Well, there's a difference between feat bloat and feats. A large number of the feats out there are horribly weak, prerequisites that are only worth it for what they give you access to, or extremely similar to existing feats.

I agree that that kind of bloat is bad. The weak feats should be gone, which implicitly means any prerequisite feats should be worth taking on their own merit, and any feat that is basically a reflavoring of an additional one is a waste of space.

But having a large selection of unique, well balanced feats, is not a bad thing! It's not the feat chains that I like about 3.5; it's the ability to totally customize your build by choosing different feats.

We do have that already, to an extent, but bundled into subclasses.

-O

Moarrr!

[wolfdreams01]

Looking at the new playtest, I'm having a disagreement with my DM, and I was hoping to get a few new people to weigh in.

My DM is actually reading this the way I *want* to read it, but I feel like it's not RAW.

Right now, feats are an optional replacement for your ability score bonus every few levels.

The wording in question:



The question is about the meaning of 'any.' Does forgoing improving 'any' mean you get NO ability score increase and you get ONE feat? Or does it mean you have two ability score increases, and you are able to forgo zero, one, or both to take zero, one, or two feats?

This is a huge deal, as it means the difference between 4 feats and 8 feats by level 20 (on average. Fighter would get either 7 or 14).

In my opinion, it means you get NO ability score increase and you get ONE feat. They specifically used the word "any" which means that you are foregoing all ability score increases for the ability to gain one feat. If it was a trade of one ability point for one feat, they would have used the word "either" instead of the word "any."

In short, your GM is wrong and probably would get a low Verbal score on the SAT.

[navar100]

Well... except that by and large, all the ACFs are significantly worse than what you're giving up, and/or permanently tied to a complete stinker (With a few exceptions, like Synthesist Summoner and Unpronouncable Monk)

I think it's a matter of personal taste. An ability you may not like others do.

[Quirken]

In my opinion, it means you get NO ability score increase and you get ONE feat. They specifically used the word "any" which means that you are foregoing all ability score increases for the ability to gain one feat. If it was a trade of one ability point for one feat, they would have used the word "either" instead of the word "any."

In short, your GM is wrong and probably would get a low Verbal score on the SAT.

it depends on how you parse the sentence. Any could mean either:

Emphasis on the forgoing improving (the way we're interpreting it):

you can forgo improving any of your ability scores to take a feat"

or

Emphasis on any:

you can forgo improving any [number] of your ability scores to take a feat"

Either is not quite the same, as it would imply you could only forgo one but not both. Any could (but probably not intended to) mean you could forgo "any" (zero, one, or two). Either would mean zero or two.

Bottom line, it's ambiguously worded right now. It should probably say "both" instead of "any," as I think we all agree here that's the intent.

[1337 b4k4]

Bottom line, it's ambiguously worded right now. It should probably say "both" instead of "any," as I think we all agree here that's the intent.

I don't think it is ambiguously worded. Even in your own example, you had to add [number] in order for the second reading to parse correctly. If they meant forego any one ability score adjustment, I think they would have said it. They could word it better, but I don't think it's ambiguous.