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.
Honestly, every edition has had serious problems at higher levels, and it's probably not fixable without a 4e level fix that people would reject, because the core issue is that there are a lot of extremely disruptive spells in the game, and while a DM can deal with any one disruptive spell, the list eventually becomes unmanageable.
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.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
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.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
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.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
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.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
No one is is rushing to defend a hyperbolic claim. I criticised a bad claim made by you - that 5e was successful, and therefore that meant that the progression system must be good - and you complained about a one-off hyperbolic comment that CG made that wasn't a response to what I said at all. I even divorced myself from that comment, not that I had any association with it at all. Hence the description of it as a rant.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
Sure, which is why I said it was a positive step but not a solution or end goal. They've slightly divorced ASIs and feats, which allows for feats to be chosen for flavour rather than purely in competition with ASIs (which often isn't really a choice at all). Unfortunately, that competition still exists later on, which is problematic and why I want a complete divorce.
The feat situation has somewhat improved - you can now get a feat without sacrificing something important - but you're correct that the poor progression system, currently (I'll be honest, I haven't really bothered to keep up with the UAs since the Druid nonsense drained my enthusiasm for blow-by-blow monitoring of 2024e), hasn't improved on a meaningful level by it. Not that feats are the only avenue on that, but I've seen little else that they're working on that would.
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.
No one is is rushing to defend a hyperbolic claim. I criticised a bad claim made by you - that 5e was successful, and therefore that meant that the progression system must be good
Unfortunately, that competition still exists later on, which is problematic and why I want a complete divorce.
Hard no. Feats are balanced around being a tradeoff for standard ASIs. Changing that at the base layer would require redesigning the entire feat system.
You can, at your table, choose to grant feats alongside ASIs to remove that "problematic competition," with the full knowledge that your game will be much more high-powered than the designers intended if you do so and that you will need much harder encounters to compensate. And that's perfectly okay if that's what you find fun - but that cannot and should not be forced on players who are not you, and want to simply pick up printed modules and play them as written.
Hard no. Feats are balanced around being a tradeoff for standard ASIs. Changing that at the base layer would require redesigning the entire feat system.
I think the issue is that there's a demand for something to change about characters that shows development in way other than 'bigger numbers better' and makes them more interesting, without necessarily increasing power. That system probably isn't feats, though.
I think the issue is that there's a demand for something to change about characters that shows development in way other than 'bigger numbers better' and makes them more interesting, without necessarily increasing power. That system probably isn't feats, though.
I think there's a number of feats that aren't merely mathematical increases that could be used as unique supplemental progression rewards, if that's truly the goal. Say, things like Mobile or Skulker or Prodigy or Eldritch/Metamagic Adept or Ritual/War Caster. You could even broaden it to half-feats, with a caveat like "A player who combines this with an ASI must take either the +1/+1 option, or a second half-feat."
Hard no. Feats are balanced around being a tradeoff for standard ASIs. Changing that at the base layer would require redesigning the entire feat system.
I think the issue is that there's a demand for something to change about characters that shows development in way other than 'bigger numbers better' and makes them more interesting, without necessarily increasing power. That system probably isn't feats, though.
To be clear, are you saying you want more soft features? Because honestly that's somewhat unrealistic to expect from D&D; it's pretty far on the hard end of the TTRPG spectrum and that's not gonna change anytime soon. There's not much way you can improve a character's general performance without either interacting with skill checks or "increasing the power" of some action they can take. Plus combat is a major pillar of the game, so they do need to a) increase combat abilities as the game progresses and b) make those increases quantifiable so they can estimate performance and compare it to the desired level for balanced play (not saying the balance itself is truly phenomenal, but they need hard numbers if they're even going to ballpark it).
To be clear, are you saying you want more soft features?
I was more trying to interpret than making a particular recommendation. My particular preference is that PCs get new toys to play with at moderately frequent intervals. Spellcasters get a bunch of new toys every time they get a new level of spell (for prepared spells casters, arguably too many); non-casters do get the occasional new feature, but it's nowhere near the scale you see for casters.
To be clear, are you saying you want more soft features?
I was more trying to interpret than making a particular recommendation. My particular preference is that PCs get new toys to play with at moderately frequent intervals. Spellcasters get a bunch of new toys every time they get a new level of spell (for prepared spells casters, arguably too many); non-casters do get the occasional new feature, but it's nowhere near the scale you see for casters.
And that's the beauty of the DMG 231 rule - because the extra feats are tied to specific trainers in the world, you have an in-fiction justification for tipping the scales towards the martials if you want. The Grandmaster on the Peak of Serenity wants to reward the party for defending his temple, but he isn't a spellcaster, so his best techniques (additional feats) will only be good for the {martial PCs}; meanwhile, the {caster PCs} get the lesser reward of his special meditation techniques, and thus get the daily Inspiration at dawn for the next X days reward instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, every edition has had serious problems at higher levels, and it's probably not fixable without a 4e level fix that people would reject, because the core issue is that there are a lot of extremely disruptive spells in the game, and while a DM can deal with any one disruptive spell, the list eventually becomes unmanageable.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
No one is is rushing to defend a hyperbolic claim. I criticised a bad claim made by you - that 5e was successful, and therefore that meant that the progression system must be good - and you complained about a one-off hyperbolic comment that CG made that wasn't a response to what I said at all. I even divorced myself from that comment, not that I had any association with it at all. Hence the description of it as a rant.
Sure, which is why I said it was a positive step but not a solution or end goal. They've slightly divorced ASIs and feats, which allows for feats to be chosen for flavour rather than purely in competition with ASIs (which often isn't really a choice at all). Unfortunately, that competition still exists later on, which is problematic and why I want a complete divorce.
The feat situation has somewhat improved - you can now get a feat without sacrificing something important - but you're correct that the poor progression system, currently (I'll be honest, I haven't really bothered to keep up with the UAs since the Druid nonsense drained my enthusiasm for blow-by-blow monitoring of 2024e), hasn't improved on a meaningful level by it. Not that feats are the only avenue on that, but I've seen little else that they're working on that would.
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.
Yet again, not what I said.
Hard no. Feats are balanced around being a tradeoff for standard ASIs. Changing that at the base layer would require redesigning the entire feat system.
You can, at your table, choose to grant feats alongside ASIs to remove that "problematic competition," with the full knowledge that your game will be much more high-powered than the designers intended if you do so and that you will need much harder encounters to compensate. And that's perfectly okay if that's what you find fun - but that cannot and should not be forced on players who are not you, and want to simply pick up printed modules and play them as written.
I think the issue is that there's a demand for something to change about characters that shows development in way other than 'bigger numbers better' and makes them more interesting, without necessarily increasing power. That system probably isn't feats, though.
I think there's a number of feats that aren't merely mathematical increases that could be used as unique supplemental progression rewards, if that's truly the goal. Say, things like Mobile or Skulker or Prodigy or Eldritch/Metamagic Adept or Ritual/War Caster. You could even broaden it to half-feats, with a caveat like "A player who combines this with an ASI must take either the +1/+1 option, or a second half-feat."
To be clear, are you saying you want more soft features? Because honestly that's somewhat unrealistic to expect from D&D; it's pretty far on the hard end of the TTRPG spectrum and that's not gonna change anytime soon. There's not much way you can improve a character's general performance without either interacting with skill checks or "increasing the power" of some action they can take. Plus combat is a major pillar of the game, so they do need to a) increase combat abilities as the game progresses and b) make those increases quantifiable so they can estimate performance and compare it to the desired level for balanced play (not saying the balance itself is truly phenomenal, but they need hard numbers if they're even going to ballpark it).
I was more trying to interpret than making a particular recommendation. My particular preference is that PCs get new toys to play with at moderately frequent intervals. Spellcasters get a bunch of new toys every time they get a new level of spell (for prepared spells casters, arguably too many); non-casters do get the occasional new feature, but it's nowhere near the scale you see for casters.
And that's the beauty of the DMG 231 rule - because the extra feats are tied to specific trainers in the world, you have an in-fiction justification for tipping the scales towards the martials if you want. The Grandmaster on the Peak of Serenity wants to reward the party for defending his temple, but he isn't a spellcaster, so his best techniques (additional feats) will only be good for the {martial PCs}; meanwhile, the {caster PCs} get the lesser reward of his special meditation techniques, and thus get the daily Inspiration at dawn for the next X days reward instead.