I mean, we haven’t really seen an “introduction” of proper feat trees yet; Bigby’s and Planescape had feats that built on certain background feats (and notably were half feats, which mitigates the ASI issue), but I don’t recall seeing anything like that in the UA, let alone any really branching trees. While I admit it would certainly be nice to have my cake and eat it too, I think between half feats and the fact that- at least as I see the numbers- the difference between a +3 mod and a +4 or 5 is more marginal than critical, the current system is not truly promoting one over the other. I don’t think we need a massive overhaul so much as a continuation of the trend from Bigby’s and Planescape to draw some more interest and attention towards feat options.
I admit I thought the background features setup had a lot of interesting ideas to it, but their actual occurrence in a campaign tends to vary wildly based on the DM.
And dependent upon the player.
I'll be honest, I think I'd like to divorce feats from ASIs, or at least have feat-only choices at times. Feats are what make characters flavourful, but often the best choice is an ASI. Having a feat-only Background is a good step towards that.
This is the change I was most hoping for in 2024–this is how 4e did things and was a major reason why 4e excelled at letting players really build the unique character they wanted to play.
I also think a divorce of feats and ASI is particularly important given the introduction of feat trees. Feat trees really need greater access to feats to function - otherwise, you are kind of shoehorned into picking feats from that tree during your limited feat options, so, even if the feat system provides more viable options, your viable choices paradoxically decrease.
I am still holding out some hope that Wizards might just go ahead and do this - either as the default rule, or as an official optional rule (with Beyond support). While it might be weird to see such a large and fundamental change implemented without playtesting, this is the exact kind of change that should not be left up to players. After all, we all know that the “making people superheroes who trivialize combat” argument is already popular online, mostly pushed by bad/lazy/incompetent DMs who forget/ignore they can always increase encounter difficulty. Given the long-standing success of this bad, but pervasive argument, I doubt such a change would get over 80% of support, even if it would make the game better. Something that would be good for the game, but could get lambasted by a loud, known, and vocal minority and thus not meet the threshold for inclusion is exactly the type of update Wizards should not shop to the masses first.
Gentle reminder that "more feats" already exists as an alternate reward structure even today - see DMG 231, "Other Rewards - Training." Players aren't rigidly limited to the feat progression of their class; if you want them to have more feats to play with then just replace some of their treasure with these. In fact, feat rewards are arguably better for a lot of campaigns since you don't have to shower the party with magic items or superfluous gold even when those things don't fit the world you're playing in.
In point of fact, they appear to be going this route for campaign-specific rewards in general - creating extra feats for things like Dragonlance and Planescape instead of more campaign-specific systems like Ravenloft Dark Gifts, Theros Piety and Ravnica Renown. Dragonlance in particular straight-up gives 2 extra feats to everyone even before this optional rule, with the justification that Krynn is a world at war.
I admit I thought the background features setup had a lot of interesting ideas to it, but their actual occurrence in a campaign tends to vary wildly based on the DM.
And dependent upon the player.
I'll be honest, I think I'd like to divorce feats from ASIs, or at least have feat-only choices at times. Feats are what make characters flavourful, but often the best choice is an ASI. Having a feat-only Background is a good step towards that.
This is the change I was most hoping for in 2024–this is how 4e did things and was a major reason why 4e excelled at letting players really build the unique character they wanted to play.
I also think a divorce of feats and ASI is particularly important given the introduction of feat trees. Feat trees really need greater access to feats to function - otherwise, you are kind of shoehorned into picking feats from that tree during your limited feat options, so, even if the feat system provides more viable options, your viable choices paradoxically decrease.
I am still holding out some hope that Wizards might just go ahead and do this - either as the default rule, or as an official optional rule (with Beyond support). While it might be weird to see such a large and fundamental change implemented without playtesting, this is the exact kind of change that should not be left up to players. After all, we all know that the “making people superheroes who trivialize combat” argument is already popular online, mostly pushed by bad/lazy/incompetent DMs who forget/ignore they can always increase encounter difficulty. Given the long-standing success of this bad, but pervasive argument, I doubt such a change would get over 80% of support, even if it would make the game better. Something that would be good for the game, but could get lambasted by a loud, known, and vocal minority and thus not meet the threshold for inclusion is exactly the type of update Wizards should not shop to the masses first.
Gentle reminder that "more feats" already exists as an alternate reward structure even today - see DMG 231, "Other Rewards - Training." Players aren't rigidly limited to the feat progression of their class; if you want them to have more feats to play with then just replace some of their treasure with these. In fact, feat rewards are arguably better for a lot of campaigns since you don't have to shower the party with magic items or superfluous gold even when those things don't fit the world you're playing in.
In point of fact, they appear to be going this route for campaign-specific rewards in general - creating extra feats for things like Dragonlance and Planescape instead of more campaign-specific systems like Ravenloft Dark Gifts, Theros Piety and Ravnica Renown. Dragonlance in particular straight-up gives 2 extra feats to everyone even before this optional rule, with the justification that Krynn is a world at war.
This is the rule I personally follow at my tables and have been for years. It is a poor substitute for a more defined system wherein feats are built into progression in a manner divorced from ASI.
As an optional aspect of the game, the entire provision is ignored by large numbers of DMs--keeping a rule like this buried does not fix the fundamental 5e flaw that character progression is very linear and feat availability is so limited that the a significant portion of feats are dead content, even upon release. And, of course, it can add another element of DM-player strife ("when is my next feat" joining "I want more magic items" as a classic player complaint) and can result in players feeling the DM is dictating their character's progression not their own.
The existence of a bad optional rule is not an excuse to avoid fixing a known problem by creating a good default rule.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
I think the balance is with new DMs. before you had to hope you found that diamond in the rough natural DM, or someone who had played and was willing to take that risk. I think they are trying to help new dms not feel pressured to play the more difficult more complicated game and get burned form doing it later.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Uh... you're the one who called 1st-level feats an "impossibly confusing choice," not me. Your faith in new players appears somewhat inconsistent 🤨
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Right, and they're keeping feats at every 4th level, with more than that being an optional reward structure. So I guess we agree that's fine then?
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players.
It's not really about new players. I know people who have been playing for years and still have to be reminded 'by the way, you have extra attack'. While 5e is fairly simple by D&D standards, it's still a game with a 256 page rulebook; most (though not all) published non-D&D games are simpler.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
That was a claim that would be more directly deductable from the evidence presented. The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied. There are a ton of factors involved in why 5e was so successful, and the quality of character progression mechanics is not something I'd place even in the top 3 factors in that. There's plenty of room for it to be quite bad and still have the game be successful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
Edit: I want to be clear, 5e has become my favorite edition of D&D, and I think, overall, it is a great game. But just because something is great overall does not mean it cannot be made better by fixing underperforming aspects.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Printing more feats is not a change to the game's progression; you still get the same number of them baseline at the exact same points as before, i.e. an ASI every 4th level until you go from 16th-19th. They have never claimed they saw anything wrong with this baseline progression either. The one thing they were even remotely interested in looking at was adding a single Epic Boon as a capstone, and even that comes at the end of the character's progression, for campaigns that even make it that far.
All the rest of this is just opinion. Which you're entitled to, obviously, but it isn't "evidence" of anything save your own personal preferences/playstyle.
The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
My point was that you can't say it didn't get in the way. You can say that it didn't hobble the game's popularity*, but you can't claim that it was the reason for game's success. You've been here basically as long as I have, and likely to have seen those same discussions talking about why 5e is so popular and all recycle the same half dozen reasons - none of which centre on the character progression. There's a reason for that - it's not anywhere near the largest factor in its success.
* and that's objectively true, and no one here is saying that the game is bad, most of us have sunk more hours into it than we care to admit and enjoy it enough to be going online and discussing it's merits with strangers almost as a hobby in itself.
Now, what are you actually asking? I can explain why it's bad game design. I can do that in the same way I can explain why the fact that on mobile, if you hit report post by accident, you can't get back to the thread without refreshing the page is bad site design (and yes, that's something that's just screwed me over and so is fresh in my memory!). With a couple of basic axioms (like, that it's bad to make it easy to wipe your work without intent), it can be shown that it's not a good design.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
If on the other hand you want to understand more of what we're saying, I can go into a deep dive on it. CG referenced the problems without explaining much about the rationale, but I could go deeper, explaining why they're fundamental problems rather than mere "taste". However, that's a lot of time and effort to do - again, not something I'm willing to do if this is just about defending/attacking 5e, but I'm willing to do it if you want to understand more of what's being said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
To me, you really hit the nail on the head with this observation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
No, you're making claims that it's good and responsible for 5e's popularity - that 5e wouldn't be successful if it were bad.
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, we haven’t really seen an “introduction” of proper feat trees yet; Bigby’s and Planescape had feats that built on certain background feats (and notably were half feats, which mitigates the ASI issue), but I don’t recall seeing anything like that in the UA, let alone any really branching trees. While I admit it would certainly be nice to have my cake and eat it too, I think between half feats and the fact that- at least as I see the numbers- the difference between a +3 mod and a +4 or 5 is more marginal than critical, the current system is not truly promoting one over the other. I don’t think we need a massive overhaul so much as a continuation of the trend from Bigby’s and Planescape to draw some more interest and attention towards feat options.
Gentle reminder that "more feats" already exists as an alternate reward structure even today - see DMG 231, "Other Rewards - Training." Players aren't rigidly limited to the feat progression of their class; if you want them to have more feats to play with then just replace some of their treasure with these. In fact, feat rewards are arguably better for a lot of campaigns since you don't have to shower the party with magic items or superfluous gold even when those things don't fit the world you're playing in.
In point of fact, they appear to be going this route for campaign-specific rewards in general - creating extra feats for things like Dragonlance and Planescape instead of more campaign-specific systems like Ravenloft Dark Gifts, Theros Piety and Ravnica Renown. Dragonlance in particular straight-up gives 2 extra feats to everyone even before this optional rule, with the justification that Krynn is a world at war.
This is the rule I personally follow at my tables and have been for years. It is a poor substitute for a more defined system wherein feats are built into progression in a manner divorced from ASI.
As an optional aspect of the game, the entire provision is ignored by large numbers of DMs--keeping a rule like this buried does not fix the fundamental 5e flaw that character progression is very linear and feat availability is so limited that the a significant portion of feats are dead content, even upon release. And, of course, it can add another element of DM-player strife ("when is my next feat" joining "I want more magic items" as a classic player complaint) and can result in players feeling the DM is dictating their character's progression not their own.
The existence of a bad optional rule is not an excuse to avoid fixing a known problem by creating a good default rule.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
I think the balance is with new DMs. before you had to hope you found that diamond in the rough natural DM, or someone who had played and was willing to take that risk. I think they are trying to help new dms not feel pressured to play the more difficult more complicated game and get burned form doing it later.
My Brews:
Race: Tropical Dwaves Spells: Summon Spirits Rites of Mummification
Monster: Osprey Feat: Skill Mastery–Animal Handler (Provides DCs for training animals applicable to those with and without this feat)
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Uh... you're the one who called 1st-level feats an "impossibly confusing choice," not me. Your faith in new players appears somewhat inconsistent 🤨
Right, and they're keeping feats at every 4th level, with more than that being an optional reward structure. So I guess we agree that's fine then?
It's not really about new players. I know people who have been playing for years and still have to be reminded 'by the way, you have extra attack'. While 5e is fairly simple by D&D standards, it's still a game with a 256 page rulebook; most (though not all) published non-D&D games are simpler.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
That was a claim that would be more directly deductable from the evidence presented. The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied. There are a ton of factors involved in why 5e was so successful, and the quality of character progression mechanics is not something I'd place even in the top 3 factors in that. There's plenty of room for it to be quite bad and still have the game be successful.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
Edit: I want to be clear, 5e has become my favorite edition of D&D, and I think, overall, it is a great game. But just because something is great overall does not mean it cannot be made better by fixing underperforming aspects.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Printing more feats is not a change to the game's progression; you still get the same number of them baseline at the exact same points as before, i.e. an ASI every 4th level until you go from 16th-19th. They have never claimed they saw anything wrong with this baseline progression either. The one thing they were even remotely interested in looking at was adding a single Epic Boon as a capstone, and even that comes at the end of the character's progression, for campaigns that even make it that far.
All the rest of this is just opinion. Which you're entitled to, obviously, but it isn't "evidence" of anything save your own personal preferences/playstyle.
My point was that you can't say it didn't get in the way. You can say that it didn't hobble the game's popularity*, but you can't claim that it was the reason for game's success. You've been here basically as long as I have, and likely to have seen those same discussions talking about why 5e is so popular and all recycle the same half dozen reasons - none of which centre on the character progression. There's a reason for that - it's not anywhere near the largest factor in its success.
* and that's objectively true, and no one here is saying that the game is bad, most of us have sunk more hours into it than we care to admit and enjoy it enough to be going online and discussing it's merits with strangers almost as a hobby in itself.
_____________________________________________________________
Now, what are you actually asking? I can explain why it's bad game design. I can do that in the same way I can explain why the fact that on mobile, if you hit report post by accident, you can't get back to the thread without refreshing the page is bad site design (and yes, that's something that's just screwed me over and so is fresh in my memory!). With a couple of basic axioms (like, that it's bad to make it easy to wipe your work without intent), it can be shown that it's not a good design.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
If on the other hand you want to understand more of what we're saying, I can go into a deep dive on it. CG referenced the problems without explaining much about the rationale, but I could go deeper, explaining why they're fundamental problems rather than mere "taste". However, that's a lot of time and effort to do - again, not something I'm willing to do if this is just about defending/attacking 5e, but I'm willing to do it if you want to understand more of what's being said.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
To me, you really hit the nail on the head with this observation.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.