Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
Not sure... I think they could do it. If they can get Bastions in, they can do this, too. Only it would be kind of inelegant, to have a "BTW, ignore the ASIs in the class descriptions" for older stuff...
Bastions are apples to oranges to rearranging the feat/ASI structure. For one, Bastions will be an optional feature, not a standard part of character progression. And for another they are at a significant remove from the PC's on a day-to-day basis.
bastions kinda feel like daily mmo quests. Something to many you log in and click stuff each day but gives a very small reward. Which totally doesn't fit an rpg. Everything about bastions feels video gamified in an the wrong ways.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
You can't fix D&D by turning it into Pathfinder. If you want customization options choose a system with a million customization options. D&D is more narrative focused.
There's a huge amount between virtually zero and a million options. The problem is dnd doesn't want options, and any the do make are very poorly designed or just meaningless.
Look at bastions, it's a book keeping task, but not any fun
There's a huge amount between virtually zero and a million options. The problem is dnd doesn't want options, and any the do make are very poorly designed or just meaningless.
Look at bastions, it's a book keeping task, but not any fun
I think Bastions look like a lot of fun. And it's not something you are constantly rolling for, it's something you do at intervals. Besides, you're assuming the Bastion just stands there off to the side on its own little island, when really it can be a base your party occupies, has scenes in, and potentially even fights in.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
The more I've engaged with the UA materials/forum, the more I actually want a 6th edition where there is room to restructure some of the systems - mainly the progression systems, gish-classes using more but lesser spell casting, and to make mechanics more open-ended. I find 5.5e exciting in the ways that it is meant to improve on an already quite good foundation, but I still consider 5e to be too "safe" and simple overall.
There's a strength and beauty in controlled simplicity but I find it best when its systems also feel cohesive and not disassociated. As previously mentioned the Devs doesn't seem to want many overt synergies - thinking of the UA PAM + Sentinel feats or something like the Bladesinger + Tenser's Transformation (losing out of the Extra attack feature the spell grants, because it's redundant) or basically anything Bladesinger + spells that functions like weapon attacks (Steel Wind Strike).
Speaking of Steel Wind Strike, it specifically functions to optionally teleport you within 5 ft. of one of your targets, here ignoring that you could very well be wielding a weapon with Reach or have some other feature granting you increased reach (like the Bugbear's Long Limbs +5 ft. reach). It would make the most sense that you get to teleport near one of your targets within your melee reach. Additionally the spell doesn't really care about the weapon you use, nor whatever features you might have that improve your weapon attacks (say enchantment or something like Elemental Weapon). This is an example of a mechanic/spell that is "safely contained" and not open for synergies. You can still improve on your attack rolls, as that part is a core mechanic that the Devs couldn't cut off, so there's the chance to get advantage through the Unseen Attacker rules (through something like Greater Invisibility) and then top off with Elven Accuracy to increase your chance to hit.
Now don't get me wrong, SWS still packs a good wallop and uses a very fortunate damage type. The problem is more that you cannot interact with the spell in a way that most players find obvious. There's also no fundamental difference between a sword-wielding spellcaster (like a Bladesinger) who has invested in their weapon and associated attributes casting SWS from a squishy Evoker spellcaster with none of these investments casting it with a tea spoon for a weapon. This is a thematic failure in my eyes and fails to reward players for building toward a fighter-spellcaster build rather than a traditional spellcaster build. I would really love to see more ability to invest into your mechanics instead of most things being self-contained.
There is likely going to be people who will counter-argue that open-endedness brings issues too, which is a fair point. It introduces an increased need to balance around mechanics and increasing the need for the player to know their character. Like in the situation of Steel Wind Strike teleporting within melee reach instead of a static 5 feet, now we need to know what our melee reach is. I would argue that's a very basic thing to know about your character, but I get the point that the spell requires additional information outside the spell's description. This is already true for spell DC, spell attack or weapon attack rolls + other modifiers. Adding an additional point of information doesn't seem that problematic.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
having a simple option doesnt mean its simple overall, And feats are generally not weaker than asi, they are more specific and varied. For a person who likes choices, you dont really seem interested in having choices if you evaluate feats at being bad. An ASI is simply an increase of about 5% accuracy and sometimes a slight damage boost. If you find that objectively better than expertise, absorbing damage, parrying attacks, area denial, spells, etc, you arent really looking for choices.
Also, your claim is a major oversimplification.
onednd
level 1 you choose class, race, subrace abilities, feats and skills
there are 5 ASi for most classes. = 5 choices,
melee choose weapons, and weapon masteries
you choose subclasses
of the subclasses, there are generally ones which contain extra choices.
and you can use multiclassing if you really want to have a huge amount of variation.
The game is actually very complex, that doesnt necessarily mean its good, but the game has about 900 pages for the core experience, with multiple add on books.
The majority of choices in DnD is like you stated frontloaded at level 1. It is also quite difficult to make it any different without severely hampering the early game experience (for instance postponing skill proficiencies until a later level). However over the course of the remaining 19 levels, there's generally not many choices to make in terms of character progression, with the exception of spellcasters - and lets be more precise full casters.
Add to this, that once a player gets a bit of experience in selecting spells and especially if they look up guides, the choices narrow severely down to a good handful of spells that are generally worthwhile or even superb. I would equate it to a weapon choice between a Dagger's 1d4 and a Short Sword's 1d6. Without any additional interaction there's really only one choice in that scenario, and there's definitely some spells that fit the Dagger's bill in that equation and some that fit the Short Sword's.
Similarly there's definitely some feats that are not that enticing and a lot of the time it has to do with a very niche mechanic or a lack of scale into later tiers of the game. Earlier I touched upon the Charger feat with the 2014 version being a very poor feat, especially when considering scaling into later tiers of the game. Another could be the 2014 version of the Durable feat that is a half feat with "+1 CON and when spending Hit Dice, you regain a minimum of twice your CON modifier." When spending Hit Dice (during a Short Rest) you already add your CON modifier to each roll, so half the minimum from the feat is already a given. Then it's only if your roll hits the very bottom of the die range that you actually see a benefit from the feat - unless you're heavily invested into CON at which point you might see slightly more benefit but your Hit Dice are often also larger, so less likely to roll low values. In the UA2 this feat is also reworked to grant "+1 CON, Advantage on Death Saving Throws, Bonus Action to spend a Hit Die, roll it and regain that amount of HP." So both examples are feats that have seen revisions in the UA because they were underperforming in their initial conception.
I could also point to Defensive Duelist, which has also been revised, but in the sense that it got a +1 DEX half-feat treatment in the UA2. And this was the case for all feats in the UA2 so difficult to know if it would have remained in its previous form if they hadn't made that baseline. The feat allows you "as a reaction when a creature hits you with a melee attack, you can add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing it to miss." The feat checks a couple of boxes on the good side: it scales off your proficiency, it utilizes your reaction which is not that contested in use (contrary to bonus action) and it is first spent when you are guaranteed a function (in contrast to spending it prior to knowing if the attack actually hit you in the first place). However it also have some drawbacks; it needs to be against a melee attack, you need to wield a Finesse weapon, it only functions against a single melee attack (in contrast to the Shield spell), it isn't guaranteed to cause the attack to miss (unless your DM tells you the attack roll to beat), and many enemies in higher tiers of play have multi-hit or AoE-hits that ignores AC (breath weapons, spells, AoE-attacks) - making it less applicable. I would not say Defensive Duelist is that bad, and especially being a half-feat now with +1 DEX makes it less of an opportunity cost, but neither is it a good feat in my eyes unless you have excess feats and/or are SAD - like a Fighter. If the choice is between DD and a +1 to my DEX modifier, I'll take the +1 to atk/dmg rolls, +1 AC, +1 Initiative, +1 to ability checks/saving throws on DEX (like the aforementioned AoE attacks).
And there are more feats that definitely are shaky to argue are equal to a generic +1 stat modifier. There's also very niche feats like Actor that requires a specific setting to be useful and again is unlikely to make much impact into later tiers of the game. I don't mind niche feats that are more roleplay orientated, but I do reckon that they account for some design space and thus doesn't allow much room for similar but broader applicable feats.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
You can't fix D&D by turning it into Pathfinder. If you want customization options choose a system with a million customization options. D&D is more narrative focused.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and arguing DnD shouldn't have more customization than it does because there exists a product that does this to an extreme extend is a straw man argument.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
The more I've engaged with the UA materials/forum, the more I actually want a 6th edition where there is room to restructure some of the systems - mainly the progression systems, gish-classes using more but lesser spell casting, and to make mechanics more open-ended. I find 5.5e exciting in the ways that it is meant to improve on an already quite good foundation, but I still consider 5e to be too "safe" and simple overall.
I generally agree especially given how long 5e has been out, game systems evolve and a 5.35 or whatever they are going for does not really capitalize on that. I likely would disagree largely on where the rules would end up. Like I think almost all utility spells should be turned into ritual only spells that just require you learn the ritual and have the correct skill, no class requirements. Sure design it so spell casters are likely the best at rituals by using arcana, religion(change to a wisdom skill), nature etc. While I overall did not care for 4e, this was one of its few good ideas, though I think its execution was a bit off. But let that fighter cast teleport if they decide to learn the ritual. Spell slots should be for things you need right now, which may include some utility spells like lets say invisibility but the big ticket utility spells are usually not needed to be cast in a combat round, dimension door etc covers the combat teleport, long distance travel teleport let it be a ritual.
As previously mentioned the Devs doesn't seem to want many overt synergies
I don't think it's so much about "not wanting synergies" as "keeping the word count low." The sorts of synergies you give by example (some are really neat ideas) usually require a lot of verbose, technical writing. And 5e is trying real hard to be mass-market by using concise "natural language" to describe the rules. (Arguably, they give their blessing to DMs being creative and allowing all the complicated synergies they can handle --- just, if you must treat the rules like software instructions, you can't do that.)
I do think they've been a bit too precious with word count, and maybe a little bit too afraid their customers' reading levels. (And they've given some interviews lately that say they maybe edited too tightly and should explain more.) But this is definitely a market strategy, to increase the customer base by appealing to less-technical readers.
The more I've engaged with the UA materials/forum, the more I actually want a 6th edition where there is room to restructure some of the systems - mainly the progression systems, gish-classes using more but lesser spell casting, and to make mechanics more open-ended. I find 5.5e exciting in the ways that it is meant to improve on an already quite good foundation, but I still consider 5e to be too "safe" and simple overall.
I generally agree especially given how long 5e has been out, game systems evolve and a 5.35 or whatever they are going for does not really capitalize on that. I likely would disagree largely on where the rules would end up. Like I think almost all utility spells should be turned into ritual only spells that just require you learn the ritual and have the correct skill, no class requirements. Sure design it so spell casters are likely the best at rituals by using arcana, religion(change to a wisdom skill), nature etc. While I overall did not care for 4e, this was one of its few good ideas, though I think its execution was a bit off. But let that fighter cast teleport if they decide to learn the ritual. Spell slots should be for things you need right now, which may include some utility spells like lets say invisibility but the big ticket utility spells are usually not needed to be cast in a combat round, dimension door etc covers the combat teleport, long distance travel teleport let it be a ritual.
Yeah, I think we wont agree about where the rules should end up for a new edition, but it is always fun to discuss ideas and reasoning. One might end up reaffirmed of their position but with new arguments or they may change their mind.
I don't think every class should be able to learn ritual spells and cast something like Teleport if they want. I do think you could utilize consumables/spell scrolls that can be cast/used by anyone would fix the issue/requirement to have utility spellcasters available in the party to take care of long distance/interplanar travel.
I wouldn't mind more spells having the ritual tag, especially non-combat utility spells, with an appropriate non-cheese preparation time. For instance the useful Tiny Hut can be cast as a ritual but its upgraded version, the Magnificent Mansion, doesn't have this benefit and requires a 7th level spell slot at minimum. That's kind of a tall order for a spell that's mainly an upgraded version of a level 3 ritual spell. Which also makes me wish for ritual casted spells to have separate casting times (rather than a modifier), perhaps some require the spell prepared and some don't (rather than just Wizards cheating that requirement) and possibly still require a spell slot, but of a vastly lower level - like the Mansion being cast as a 10 minute ritual by using a 3rd level spell slot or higher. That's much more doable and doesn't feel as wasteful. It basically also means that spells that require a high level to acquire don't necessarily need the same level of cost as other spells of that level. Like the complexity of the spell is high requiring the mind to understand high level magic, but it is more efficient, so it requires less actual magic to cast.
As for why I don't want every class to acquire ritual spells, is that once spell caster's spells reach level 5 or higher... their choice for good raw damage spells (like Fireball) dwindle severely, but their selection of control and utility spells go up significantly. To basically give every class the ability to gain what a high level spellcaster has worked most of their lifetime to achieve... feels a bit cheap. However having someone else prep that utility and bind the magic in a spell scroll... seems more serviceable and removes some of the requirement of having a spell caster in the party to use it in the first place. Pair it with the above function of ritual-casting to lower the required spell slot for the casting, would severely lower the cost of such spell scrolls as well - making it a 3rd level spell slot rather than a 7th level.
Another possible solution could be to chain spell slots in a ritual casting to basically Frankenstein's Monster your way to the required spell slot level. You require a 7th level spell slot to cast Teleport, so you can sum the levels of other spell slots to satisfy that spell slot requirement - say use a 3rd and a 4th level spell slot or two 2nd level and a 3rd level spell slot to cover the 7th level spell slot required to cast Teleport. This would significantly lower the tax on higher level spell slot used by utility spells. It's somewhat reminiscent of the spell point system, except possibly it wont require a limit on how many high level spells you can cast this way. The limit being the restraints when ritual casting it this way, which could be longer casting time, easy to disrupt. So don't expect to use this for combat - which I figure is the main reason why the Spell Point system cannot craft multiple spell slots of any given level above 5.
As previously mentioned the Devs doesn't seem to want many overt synergies
I don't think it's so much about "not wanting synergies" as "keeping the word count low." The sorts of synergies you give by example (some are really neat ideas) usually require a lot of verbose, technical writing. And 5e is trying real hard to be mass-market by using concise "natural language" to describe the rules. (Arguably, they give their blessing to DMs being creative and allowing all the complicated synergies they can handle --- just, if you must treat the rules like software instructions, you can't do that.)
I do think they've been a bit too precious with word count, and maybe a little bit too afraid their customers' reading levels. (And they've given some interviews lately that say they maybe edited too tightly and should explain more.) But this is definitely a market strategy, to increase the customer base by appealing to less-technical readers.
One of the cases I used to signal the Devs' unwillingness to provide overt synergies was the loss of the Opportunity Attack category on the reactive weapon attack from Polearm Master. That was meant as a nerf to Polearm Master, but more likely reads like a nerf to Sentinel, because of the loss of that interaction.
I see quite a few reaction-based attacks don't actually use Opportunity Attack as their trigger, which I figure is technically a shame.
I do get what you're saying and it's also an issue that is faced when making cards for Magic the Gathering.
The issue I have when the game lets such a large portion of the game's mechanics "be up to the discretion of the DM" is that it burdens the DM to take position on these cases. As a Player I don't want to burden my DM with smaller questions of mechanical leeway, and as a player, I want to know what my mechanics do and not have to remember that the DM gave me permission to use Steel Wind Strike with the full reach of my Polearm in my Bugbear's hands. Simultaneously if the DM grants me this benefit, then other players might feel inclined to believe they are owed some other kind of favor on their end. SWS being limited to teleport within 5 ft. is not logical - much in the same way that the Charger feat doesn't require a movement toward the creature you attack is not logical/thematic. But it's not the job of my DM to clean that up.
In short; I don't want to make a mess for my DM and have them clean up the simplified writings of the DnD Devs. But at the same time, I want my mechanics to make sense and feel like they are cohesive with the systems it utilizes.
I think there are certain synergies that they want removed, while others I think they find acceptable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Remember that the "ASI == Feat, 1 every 4 levels" paradigm is just base progression; it's supposed to feel a little sparse, because the DMG has rules for you to give out extra feats as treasure/rewards. And to be perfectly honest, I see these rewards as superior to currency or magic items in many ways. The impact of an extra feat or two on your future encounter design is typically much easier to gauge at a glance than, say, handing out a +2 weapons to all your martials and +2 foci to all your casters.
Feats and ASI soo need to be seperate. Its often a false choice - and 5th ed goes out of its way to make sure you have virtually zero choices in your character anyways.
Feats could be a great way to customize, yet the game assumes your stats are increasing. In 20 levels, the only choices you get are a subclass and a couple feats or ASI. Splitting ASI and feats to be seperate things would things more interesting and reduce railroading of how all characters are the same
Feats and ASI soo need to be seperate. Its often a false choice - and 5th ed goes out of its way to make sure you have virtually zero choices in your character anyways.
Feats could be a great way to customize, yet the game assumes your stats are increasing. In 20 levels, the only choices you get are a subclass and a couple feats or ASI. Splitting ASI and feats to be seperate things would things more interesting and reduce railroading of how all characters are the same
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
Also, separating feats and ASI could create a greater disparity of performance for rolled builds when someone rolls really good stats; people already complain casters can do too much; now picture a caster who rolls 16+ for their casting stat and has two or three other mid teens rolls then taking feats like Skilled or Skill Expert on top of being able to boost those secondary stats with ASIs. Probably not truly game-breaking, but there could easily be more times than not where the caster just goes in to solve out of combat problems while the others watch. Yes, feats and ASI create a choke point, but that is by design to help keep the whole party on roughly the same level.
I completely agree. I think feats and ASI should remain linked. Taking the ASI, is /not/ a foregone conclusion, and I think that builds do have plenty of variety. I think that this only improves as some 'mandatory' feats are toned down with the new system moving forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
I disagree. Take a standard barbarian using reckless attack and a greatsword, this should be the build that's least affected by the primary ability mod since it has both a damage & to hit boost built into the class right? For them a +3 mod = 19.14 DPR, but a +5 mod = 24.57 DPR -> a 28% difference in damage.
For a ranger with longbow + hunter's mark, a +3 mod = 14.3 DPR, a +5 mod = 19.5 DPR -> 36% difference in damage.
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
I disagree. Take a standard barbarian using reckless attack and a greatsword, this should be the build that's least affected by the primary ability mod since it has both a damage & to hit boost built into the class right? For them a +3 mod = 19.14 DPR, but a +5 mod = 24.57 DPR -> a 28% difference in damage.
For a ranger with longbow + hunter's mark, a +3 mod = 14.3 DPR, a +5 mod = 19.5 DPR -> 36% difference in damage.
Well, for one thing you moved the mod by two when I specifically said "one"; plenty of campaigns don't hit level 8 and there's also enough good half feats that it's not hard to raise your main stat to the next mod at 8 even if you take feats at both ASI's. And I really need to see your calculations before I can respond to the numbers you're throwing around.
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
I disagree. Take a standard barbarian using reckless attack and a greatsword, this should be the build that's least affected by the primary ability mod since it has both a damage & to hit boost built into the class right? For them a +3 mod = 19.14 DPR, but a +5 mod = 24.57 DPR -> a 28% difference in damage.
For a ranger with longbow + hunter's mark, a +3 mod = 14.3 DPR, a +5 mod = 19.5 DPR -> 36% difference in damage.
Well, for one thing you moved the mod by two when I specifically said "one"; plenty of campaigns don't hit level 8 and there's also enough good half feats that it's not hard to raise your main stat to the next mod at 8 even if you take feats at both ASI's. And I really need to see your calculations before I can respond to the numbers you're throwing around.
Maybe that's true for OneD&D but certainly not in 5e, there are hardly any martial-half-feats worth taking in 5e.
I completely agree. I think feats and ASI should remain linked. Taking the ASI, is /not/ a foregone conclusion, and I think that builds do have plenty of variety. I think that this only improves as some 'mandatory' feats are toned down with the new system moving forward.
I also agree. Keeping ASI/Feats together (1DD they are all feats) is fine.
Now more customization, similar to how the 5E Hunter Ranger has options would be a nice addition. The problem becomes are all the options equally viable. Or, does one or two become the “must haves”. Maybe for 6E whenever that comes out. But for the 2024 update it isn’t happening.
Feats and ASI soo need to be seperate. Its often a false choice - and 5th ed goes out of its way to make sure you have virtually zero choices in your character anyways.
Feats could be a great way to customize, yet the game assumes your stats are increasing. In 20 levels, the only choices you get are a subclass and a couple feats or ASI. Splitting ASI and feats to be seperate things would things more interesting and reduce railroading of how all characters are the same
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
I don't get this argument at all. A flat +5% point to your chance to hit can be massive depending on your starting point. If you expect to hit 50% of the time, then hitting 55% of the time is not an amazing increase but is still +10% average damage increase. But if your basis is 20% chance to hit (in other words you need to roll a 17+) then increasing that to 25% chance is a +25% average damage increase.
On top of that you also get a +1 to your damage result. For most martials your damage is either 1d8 + 2 FS Duelist + 3 MOD for an average of 9.5 damage. Or a two-hander for 1d10 + 3 MOD & PAM's 1d4 + 3 MOD for an average of 14 damage. Or Greatsword's 2d6 + 3 MOD for an average of 10. Increasing that by +1 is +11%/+7%/+10% damage increase.
A simple +10% damage increase on accuracy and a +10% damage increase on damage rolls is +21% increased damage overall. That's a significant increase to your combat damage that I don't find any feat worth skipping. More realistically early in the game with a base +3 ASM it's +8% damage increase on accuracy, but you get the point.
And the more attacks, the higher the damage values goes.
Even GWM, which is often seen as one of the strongest damage feats in the game, provides a +28% average damage increase over levels 1-19 for a Fighter (without other modifiers like advantage/disadvantage), see link. This feat also lowers your accuracy percentage, so every flat +5% point is increasing the damage boost significantly.
As for casters, an increase to spells known/prepared, DC to matter is also something I find hard to substitute with a feat.
Also, separating feats and ASI could create a greater disparity of performance for rolled builds when someone rolls really good stats; people already complain casters can do too much; now picture a caster who rolls 16+ for their casting stat and has two or three other mid teens rolls then taking feats like Skilled or Skill Expert on top of being able to boost those secondary stats with ASIs. Probably not truly game-breaking, but there could easily be more times than not where the caster just goes in to solve out of combat problems while the others watch. Yes, feats and ASI create a choke point, but that is by design to help keep the whole party on roughly the same level.
I would argue for the opposite actually. Most times people will invest their ASIs into their main stat and then round out other stats or focus on feats (again also depending on whether their character is SAD or MAD). If they are separated, then a high roller build will quickly max their main stat and then use the remainder of their ASIs for whatever stats. However they will always have the same amount of feats as their Point Buy or lower rolled brethren.
Right now if you're lucky to roll 17/18 for your main stat and a 15+ for a secondary stat (like CON or DEX/WIS/CHA for gish classes) then you use your racial feats to increase main/secondary stat, at level 4 you raise your main stat to +5, and can then use 8/12/16/19 ASIs for feats.
Meanwhile a Point Buy character can at max get two stats to 15, then use racial feats to get them to 16, then they have to use two ASIs to get their main stat to +5, meaning they have one less ASI they can use for feats.
I'd gladly let a high roller get +2 to whatever secondary stats in order for my Point Buy character to gain a feat and I cannot see how my character wouldn't get a higher performance boost from that than the high roller.
For this scenario the Fighter class' extra ASIs doesn't really make sense and likely should be changed, however I find that more interesting and unique for the class than just extra ASIs/feats. Actually the Fighter's extra ASIs is the perfect example of how extra stats beyond your main and secondary are... largely wasted. A Fighter in a campaign without feats, basically finishes their build once they get to +5 STR/DEX & +5 CON. Every other stat investment thereafter are generally not doing much, and are unlikely to make the Fighter overshadow any other class in their field of expertise.
However I agree that such a change would have to wait for an eventual 6th edition, since there's backwards compatibility for OneDND.
Also, separating feats and ASI could create a greater disparity of performance for rolled builds when someone rolls really good stats; people already complain casters can do too much; now picture a caster who rolls 16+ for their casting stat and has two or three other mid teens rolls then taking feats like Skilled or Skill Expert on top of being able to boost those secondary stats with ASIs. Probably not truly game-breaking, but there could easily be more times than not where the caster just goes in to solve out of combat problems while the others watch. Yes, feats and ASI create a choke point, but that is by design to help keep the whole party on roughly the same level.
Stop.
No.
Stop right there.
It is 2024.
We need to stop treating "we rolled stats individually" players as people. We have grown past that. We are civilized now. Attempting to invoke the "we rolled stats, and some people may have rolled betterly, and then if you add more to them, they will be even betterer" as an argument just shows how weak your point is.
Or, counterpoint, "we rolled stats, and the player that rolled shit can't take fun feats because his stats are shit, so needs to take stats, and yadda yadda blah blah"
I personally think ASI should be based entirely on character level and removed from classes. ASI is generally speaking the least interesting thing you get at level-up, it does not add any new abilities or features to a character, it's just a numerical increase and basically nothing more. I think a +1 to two separate ability scores every 4 character levels are fine and just replace their position in classes with feats, which can not be swapped for ASI.
The only issue with this is that it would make characters slightly stronger compared to the 2014 counterparts, more so if feats all become half-feats giving another +1, so it's something that would need a lot more consideration on implementation. But as it currently stands, I just see ASI as a level filler/level tax, which is one of the least interesting level-up options around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
bastions kinda feel like daily mmo quests. Something to many you log in and click stuff each day but gives a very small reward. Which totally doesn't fit an rpg. Everything about bastions feels video gamified in an the wrong ways.
You can't fix D&D by turning it into Pathfinder. If you want customization options choose a system with a million customization options. D&D is more narrative focused.
There's a huge amount between virtually zero and a million options. The problem is dnd doesn't want options, and any the do make are very poorly designed or just meaningless.
Look at bastions, it's a book keeping task, but not any fun
I think Bastions look like a lot of fun. And it's not something you are constantly rolling for, it's something you do at intervals. Besides, you're assuming the Bastion just stands there off to the side on its own little island, when really it can be a base your party occupies, has scenes in, and potentially even fights in.
The more I've engaged with the UA materials/forum, the more I actually want a 6th edition where there is room to restructure some of the systems - mainly the progression systems, gish-classes using more but lesser spell casting, and to make mechanics more open-ended. I find 5.5e exciting in the ways that it is meant to improve on an already quite good foundation, but I still consider 5e to be too "safe" and simple overall.
There's a strength and beauty in controlled simplicity but I find it best when its systems also feel cohesive and not disassociated. As previously mentioned the Devs doesn't seem to want many overt synergies - thinking of the UA PAM + Sentinel feats or something like the Bladesinger + Tenser's Transformation (losing out of the Extra attack feature the spell grants, because it's redundant) or basically anything Bladesinger + spells that functions like weapon attacks (Steel Wind Strike).
Speaking of Steel Wind Strike, it specifically functions to optionally teleport you within 5 ft. of one of your targets, here ignoring that you could very well be wielding a weapon with Reach or have some other feature granting you increased reach (like the Bugbear's Long Limbs +5 ft. reach). It would make the most sense that you get to teleport near one of your targets within your melee reach. Additionally the spell doesn't really care about the weapon you use, nor whatever features you might have that improve your weapon attacks (say enchantment or something like Elemental Weapon). This is an example of a mechanic/spell that is "safely contained" and not open for synergies. You can still improve on your attack rolls, as that part is a core mechanic that the Devs couldn't cut off, so there's the chance to get advantage through the Unseen Attacker rules (through something like Greater Invisibility) and then top off with Elven Accuracy to increase your chance to hit.
Now don't get me wrong, SWS still packs a good wallop and uses a very fortunate damage type. The problem is more that you cannot interact with the spell in a way that most players find obvious. There's also no fundamental difference between a sword-wielding spellcaster (like a Bladesinger) who has invested in their weapon and associated attributes casting SWS from a squishy Evoker spellcaster with none of these investments casting it with a tea spoon for a weapon. This is a thematic failure in my eyes and fails to reward players for building toward a fighter-spellcaster build rather than a traditional spellcaster build. I would really love to see more ability to invest into your mechanics instead of most things being self-contained.
There is likely going to be people who will counter-argue that open-endedness brings issues too, which is a fair point. It introduces an increased need to balance around mechanics and increasing the need for the player to know their character. Like in the situation of Steel Wind Strike teleporting within melee reach instead of a static 5 feet, now we need to know what our melee reach is. I would argue that's a very basic thing to know about your character, but I get the point that the spell requires additional information outside the spell's description. This is already true for spell DC, spell attack or weapon attack rolls + other modifiers. Adding an additional point of information doesn't seem that problematic.
The majority of choices in DnD is like you stated frontloaded at level 1. It is also quite difficult to make it any different without severely hampering the early game experience (for instance postponing skill proficiencies until a later level). However over the course of the remaining 19 levels, there's generally not many choices to make in terms of character progression, with the exception of spellcasters - and lets be more precise full casters.
Add to this, that once a player gets a bit of experience in selecting spells and especially if they look up guides, the choices narrow severely down to a good handful of spells that are generally worthwhile or even superb. I would equate it to a weapon choice between a Dagger's 1d4 and a Short Sword's 1d6. Without any additional interaction there's really only one choice in that scenario, and there's definitely some spells that fit the Dagger's bill in that equation and some that fit the Short Sword's.
Similarly there's definitely some feats that are not that enticing and a lot of the time it has to do with a very niche mechanic or a lack of scale into later tiers of the game. Earlier I touched upon the Charger feat with the 2014 version being a very poor feat, especially when considering scaling into later tiers of the game. Another could be the 2014 version of the Durable feat that is a half feat with "+1 CON and when spending Hit Dice, you regain a minimum of twice your CON modifier." When spending Hit Dice (during a Short Rest) you already add your CON modifier to each roll, so half the minimum from the feat is already a given. Then it's only if your roll hits the very bottom of the die range that you actually see a benefit from the feat - unless you're heavily invested into CON at which point you might see slightly more benefit but your Hit Dice are often also larger, so less likely to roll low values. In the UA2 this feat is also reworked to grant "+1 CON, Advantage on Death Saving Throws, Bonus Action to spend a Hit Die, roll it and regain that amount of HP."
So both examples are feats that have seen revisions in the UA because they were underperforming in their initial conception.
I could also point to Defensive Duelist, which has also been revised, but in the sense that it got a +1 DEX half-feat treatment in the UA2. And this was the case for all feats in the UA2 so difficult to know if it would have remained in its previous form if they hadn't made that baseline. The feat allows you "as a reaction when a creature hits you with a melee attack, you can add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing it to miss."
The feat checks a couple of boxes on the good side: it scales off your proficiency, it utilizes your reaction which is not that contested in use (contrary to bonus action) and it is first spent when you are guaranteed a function (in contrast to spending it prior to knowing if the attack actually hit you in the first place).
However it also have some drawbacks; it needs to be against a melee attack, you need to wield a Finesse weapon, it only functions against a single melee attack (in contrast to the Shield spell), it isn't guaranteed to cause the attack to miss (unless your DM tells you the attack roll to beat), and many enemies in higher tiers of play have multi-hit or AoE-hits that ignores AC (breath weapons, spells, AoE-attacks) - making it less applicable.
I would not say Defensive Duelist is that bad, and especially being a half-feat now with +1 DEX makes it less of an opportunity cost, but neither is it a good feat in my eyes unless you have excess feats and/or are SAD - like a Fighter. If the choice is between DD and a +1 to my DEX modifier, I'll take the +1 to atk/dmg rolls, +1 AC, +1 Initiative, +1 to ability checks/saving throws on DEX (like the aforementioned AoE attacks).
And there are more feats that definitely are shaky to argue are equal to a generic +1 stat modifier. There's also very niche feats like Actor that requires a specific setting to be useful and again is unlikely to make much impact into later tiers of the game. I don't mind niche feats that are more roleplay orientated, but I do reckon that they account for some design space and thus doesn't allow much room for similar but broader applicable feats.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and arguing DnD shouldn't have more customization than it does because there exists a product that does this to an extreme extend is a straw man argument.
I generally agree especially given how long 5e has been out, game systems evolve and a 5.35 or whatever they are going for does not really capitalize on that. I likely would disagree largely on where the rules would end up. Like I think almost all utility spells should be turned into ritual only spells that just require you learn the ritual and have the correct skill, no class requirements. Sure design it so spell casters are likely the best at rituals by using arcana, religion(change to a wisdom skill), nature etc. While I overall did not care for 4e, this was one of its few good ideas, though I think its execution was a bit off. But let that fighter cast teleport if they decide to learn the ritual. Spell slots should be for things you need right now, which may include some utility spells like lets say invisibility but the big ticket utility spells are usually not needed to be cast in a combat round, dimension door etc covers the combat teleport, long distance travel teleport let it be a ritual.
I don't think it's so much about "not wanting synergies" as "keeping the word count low." The sorts of synergies you give by example (some are really neat ideas) usually require a lot of verbose, technical writing. And 5e is trying real hard to be mass-market by using concise "natural language" to describe the rules. (Arguably, they give their blessing to DMs being creative and allowing all the complicated synergies they can handle --- just, if you must treat the rules like software instructions, you can't do that.)
I do think they've been a bit too precious with word count, and maybe a little bit too afraid their customers' reading levels. (And they've given some interviews lately that say they maybe edited too tightly and should explain more.) But this is definitely a market strategy, to increase the customer base by appealing to less-technical readers.
Yeah, I think we wont agree about where the rules should end up for a new edition, but it is always fun to discuss ideas and reasoning. One might end up reaffirmed of their position but with new arguments or they may change their mind.
I don't think every class should be able to learn ritual spells and cast something like Teleport if they want. I do think you could utilize consumables/spell scrolls that can be cast/used by anyone would fix the issue/requirement to have utility spellcasters available in the party to take care of long distance/interplanar travel.
I wouldn't mind more spells having the ritual tag, especially non-combat utility spells, with an appropriate non-cheese preparation time. For instance the useful Tiny Hut can be cast as a ritual but its upgraded version, the Magnificent Mansion, doesn't have this benefit and requires a 7th level spell slot at minimum. That's kind of a tall order for a spell that's mainly an upgraded version of a level 3 ritual spell. Which also makes me wish for ritual casted spells to have separate casting times (rather than a modifier), perhaps some require the spell prepared and some don't (rather than just Wizards cheating that requirement) and possibly still require a spell slot, but of a vastly lower level - like the Mansion being cast as a 10 minute ritual by using a 3rd level spell slot or higher. That's much more doable and doesn't feel as wasteful. It basically also means that spells that require a high level to acquire don't necessarily need the same level of cost as other spells of that level. Like the complexity of the spell is high requiring the mind to understand high level magic, but it is more efficient, so it requires less actual magic to cast.
As for why I don't want every class to acquire ritual spells, is that once spell caster's spells reach level 5 or higher... their choice for good raw damage spells (like Fireball) dwindle severely, but their selection of control and utility spells go up significantly. To basically give every class the ability to gain what a high level spellcaster has worked most of their lifetime to achieve... feels a bit cheap. However having someone else prep that utility and bind the magic in a spell scroll... seems more serviceable and removes some of the requirement of having a spell caster in the party to use it in the first place. Pair it with the above function of ritual-casting to lower the required spell slot for the casting, would severely lower the cost of such spell scrolls as well - making it a 3rd level spell slot rather than a 7th level.
Another possible solution could be to chain spell slots in a ritual casting to basically Frankenstein's Monster your way to the required spell slot level. You require a 7th level spell slot to cast Teleport, so you can sum the levels of other spell slots to satisfy that spell slot requirement - say use a 3rd and a 4th level spell slot or two 2nd level and a 3rd level spell slot to cover the 7th level spell slot required to cast Teleport.
This would significantly lower the tax on higher level spell slot used by utility spells. It's somewhat reminiscent of the spell point system, except possibly it wont require a limit on how many high level spells you can cast this way. The limit being the restraints when ritual casting it this way, which could be longer casting time, easy to disrupt. So don't expect to use this for combat - which I figure is the main reason why the Spell Point system cannot craft multiple spell slots of any given level above 5.
One of the cases I used to signal the Devs' unwillingness to provide overt synergies was the loss of the Opportunity Attack category on the reactive weapon attack from Polearm Master. That was meant as a nerf to Polearm Master, but more likely reads like a nerf to Sentinel, because of the loss of that interaction.
I see quite a few reaction-based attacks don't actually use Opportunity Attack as their trigger, which I figure is technically a shame.
I do get what you're saying and it's also an issue that is faced when making cards for Magic the Gathering.
The issue I have when the game lets such a large portion of the game's mechanics "be up to the discretion of the DM" is that it burdens the DM to take position on these cases. As a Player I don't want to burden my DM with smaller questions of mechanical leeway, and as a player, I want to know what my mechanics do and not have to remember that the DM gave me permission to use Steel Wind Strike with the full reach of my Polearm in my Bugbear's hands. Simultaneously if the DM grants me this benefit, then other players might feel inclined to believe they are owed some other kind of favor on their end.
SWS being limited to teleport within 5 ft. is not logical - much in the same way that the Charger feat doesn't require a movement toward the creature you attack is not logical/thematic. But it's not the job of my DM to clean that up.
In short; I don't want to make a mess for my DM and have them clean up the simplified writings of the DnD Devs. But at the same time, I want my mechanics to make sense and feel like they are cohesive with the systems it utilizes.
I think there are certain synergies that they want removed, while others I think they find acceptable.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Remember that the "ASI == Feat, 1 every 4 levels" paradigm is just base progression; it's supposed to feel a little sparse, because the DMG has rules for you to give out extra feats as treasure/rewards. And to be perfectly honest, I see these rewards as superior to currency or magic items in many ways. The impact of an extra feat or two on your future encounter design is typically much easier to gauge at a glance than, say, handing out a +2 weapons to all your martials and +2 foci to all your casters.
Feats and ASI soo need to be seperate. Its often a false choice - and 5th ed goes out of its way to make sure you have virtually zero choices in your character anyways.
Feats could be a great way to customize, yet the game assumes your stats are increasing. In 20 levels, the only choices you get are a subclass and a couple feats or ASI. Splitting ASI and feats to be seperate things would things more interesting and reduce railroading of how all characters are the same
As I’ve said in many places, the practical differences in performance from ability mods are marginal once you’ve got the +3 base for your primary stat. The odds that a given roll will swing the wrong way based on the absence of a +1 in the moment are 5%, and the one class that throws out rolls fast enough where you might notice the difference at tier 3 just so happens to also be one that uses attack rolls (which already favor the attacker), but also gets additional ASI, making it extremely easy to sidestep the issue.
Also, separating feats and ASI could create a greater disparity of performance for rolled builds when someone rolls really good stats; people already complain casters can do too much; now picture a caster who rolls 16+ for their casting stat and has two or three other mid teens rolls then taking feats like Skilled or Skill Expert on top of being able to boost those secondary stats with ASIs. Probably not truly game-breaking, but there could easily be more times than not where the caster just goes in to solve out of combat problems while the others watch. Yes, feats and ASI create a choke point, but that is by design to help keep the whole party on roughly the same level.
I completely agree. I think feats and ASI should remain linked. Taking the ASI, is /not/ a foregone conclusion, and I think that builds do have plenty of variety. I think that this only improves as some 'mandatory' feats are toned down with the new system moving forward.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I disagree. Take a standard barbarian using reckless attack and a greatsword, this should be the build that's least affected by the primary ability mod since it has both a damage & to hit boost built into the class right? For them a +3 mod = 19.14 DPR, but a +5 mod = 24.57 DPR -> a 28% difference in damage.
For a ranger with longbow + hunter's mark, a +3 mod = 14.3 DPR, a +5 mod = 19.5 DPR -> 36% difference in damage.
Well, for one thing you moved the mod by two when I specifically said "one"; plenty of campaigns don't hit level 8 and there's also enough good half feats that it's not hard to raise your main stat to the next mod at 8 even if you take feats at both ASI's. And I really need to see your calculations before I can respond to the numbers you're throwing around.
Maybe that's true for OneD&D but certainly not in 5e, there are hardly any martial-half-feats worth taking in 5e.
I also agree. Keeping ASI/Feats together (1DD they are all feats) is fine.
Now more customization, similar to how the 5E Hunter Ranger has options would be a nice addition. The problem becomes are all the options equally viable. Or, does one or two become the “must haves”. Maybe for 6E whenever that comes out. But for the 2024 update it isn’t happening.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don't get this argument at all. A flat +5% point to your chance to hit can be massive depending on your starting point. If you expect to hit 50% of the time, then hitting 55% of the time is not an amazing increase but is still +10% average damage increase. But if your basis is 20% chance to hit (in other words you need to roll a 17+) then increasing that to 25% chance is a +25% average damage increase.
On top of that you also get a +1 to your damage result. For most martials your damage is either 1d8 + 2 FS Duelist + 3 MOD for an average of 9.5 damage. Or a two-hander for 1d10 + 3 MOD & PAM's 1d4 + 3 MOD for an average of 14 damage. Or Greatsword's 2d6 + 3 MOD for an average of 10.
Increasing that by +1 is +11%/+7%/+10% damage increase.
A simple +10% damage increase on accuracy and a +10% damage increase on damage rolls is +21% increased damage overall. That's a significant increase to your combat damage that I don't find any feat worth skipping. More realistically early in the game with a base +3 ASM it's +8% damage increase on accuracy, but you get the point.
And the more attacks, the higher the damage values goes.
Even GWM, which is often seen as one of the strongest damage feats in the game, provides a +28% average damage increase over levels 1-19 for a Fighter (without other modifiers like advantage/disadvantage), see link. This feat also lowers your accuracy percentage, so every flat +5% point is increasing the damage boost significantly.
https://wizardofthetavern.com/great-weapon-master-5e-when-to-use-it/
As for casters, an increase to spells known/prepared, DC to matter is also something I find hard to substitute with a feat.
I would argue for the opposite actually. Most times people will invest their ASIs into their main stat and then round out other stats or focus on feats (again also depending on whether their character is SAD or MAD). If they are separated, then a high roller build will quickly max their main stat and then use the remainder of their ASIs for whatever stats. However they will always have the same amount of feats as their Point Buy or lower rolled brethren.
Right now if you're lucky to roll 17/18 for your main stat and a 15+ for a secondary stat (like CON or DEX/WIS/CHA for gish classes) then you use your racial feats to increase main/secondary stat, at level 4 you raise your main stat to +5, and can then use 8/12/16/19 ASIs for feats.
Meanwhile a Point Buy character can at max get two stats to 15, then use racial feats to get them to 16, then they have to use two ASIs to get their main stat to +5, meaning they have one less ASI they can use for feats.
I'd gladly let a high roller get +2 to whatever secondary stats in order for my Point Buy character to gain a feat and I cannot see how my character wouldn't get a higher performance boost from that than the high roller.
For this scenario the Fighter class' extra ASIs doesn't really make sense and likely should be changed, however I find that more interesting and unique for the class than just extra ASIs/feats.
Actually the Fighter's extra ASIs is the perfect example of how extra stats beyond your main and secondary are... largely wasted. A Fighter in a campaign without feats, basically finishes their build once they get to +5 STR/DEX & +5 CON. Every other stat investment thereafter are generally not doing much, and are unlikely to make the Fighter overshadow any other class in their field of expertise.
However I agree that such a change would have to wait for an eventual 6th edition, since there's backwards compatibility for OneDND.
Stop.
No.
Stop right there.
It is 2024.
We need to stop treating "we rolled stats individually" players as people. We have grown past that. We are civilized now.
Attempting to invoke the "we rolled stats, and some people may have rolled betterly, and then if you add more to them, they will be even betterer" as an argument just shows how weak your point is.
Or, counterpoint, "we rolled stats, and the player that rolled shit can't take fun feats because his stats are shit, so needs to take stats, and yadda yadda blah blah"
I personally think ASI should be based entirely on character level and removed from classes. ASI is generally speaking the least interesting thing you get at level-up, it does not add any new abilities or features to a character, it's just a numerical increase and basically nothing more. I think a +1 to two separate ability scores every 4 character levels are fine and just replace their position in classes with feats, which can not be swapped for ASI.
The only issue with this is that it would make characters slightly stronger compared to the 2014 counterparts, more so if feats all become half-feats giving another +1, so it's something that would need a lot more consideration on implementation. But as it currently stands, I just see ASI as a level filler/level tax, which is one of the least interesting level-up options around.