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.
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.