TheRPGSite

Article on dnd.wizards.com (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/feats)
Direct link to PDF (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/UA-Feats-V1.pdf)

In general I like what I see. I like how the designer put in some fluff about how a Feat can be created; he even provided a "bad" example. It's great that each feat is accompanied by some background info to explain the designer's rationale. I like how there are unique feats for each weapon type. The Tool Feats, though, particularly shine to me: they add a LOT of value to an area of the game that, in my opinion, was ambiguously useful.

I'm not crazy about the +1 bonus for the Weapon feats, though. I feel that it goes against the spirit of the game: getting rid of all the bonuses and penalties. If this is all that there'll be, then I suppose that's okay. But you know what's going to happen: on OBS the floodgates will be opened for thousands of 3rd party "10 new feats!" products, many of which will likely stack on bonuses like these. I hope not...

I think that I would have preferred something else, like "re-roll 1s on damage rolls" or "increase the damage die type by 'one step'".

What do you folks think?

The weapon feats are pretty boring, but I loved the tool feats, especially Gourmand. So flavorful.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;902764...Gourmand... flavorful.

I see what you did there, har har.

The way combat-oriented feats work in 3E, 4E and 5E has to be the thing I dislike the most about the modern era of D&D. I'm totally down with the concept of feats as a mechanism for providing non-magical characters with interesting capabilities beyond those provided by membership in a class. But the way they work is just a mix of grade inflation (50 different ways of saying you get a +1 bonus) and pretty dorky special effects. They are also highly game-able, meaning every rules dork and his cousin has figured out the 'correct' series of feats to give you some maximum combat effectiveness. I think the whole thing kind of sucks, and these new ones don't do anything to change that opinion.

Meh. Indifferent on the weapon feats, but they seem consistent with core.

Alchemist and Burglar sort of step on certain Backgrounds' toes, but I can live with that.

Gourmand has quasi-videogamey healing food which is vaguely dumb, but then hit points are so loosely defined that it may work? Eh, I don't know.

Quote from: WotCJust as importantly, feats shouldn’t add a mechanical layer to parts of the game where we expect the Dungeon Master to make a judgment call or to adjudicate things on the fly...

That whole third paragraph was good advice... I wish they'd followed it when designing the rogue's Assassin archetype. :mad:

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902781That whole third paragraph was good advice... I wish they'd followed it when designing the rogue's Assassin archetype. :mad:

Seriously, yeah. I wish they had hewn to this article throughout the 5e design.

QuoteWhy I Hate This Feat ... The ability to knock aside an opponent's shield is nifty – but that's something any character should be able to attempt.

Edit: After reading the whole thing, I would like to reduce my praise.

I find this all half-ass measures. Either go all the way and make them as mechanically impacting as... SPELLS. Or don't use them.

Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit. That works directly against their own core design concept of "Bounded Accuracy" where they even say to avoid giving out these kinds of bonuses due to the impact on it. Thirdly, as I've said in my previous posts about Fighters and the Battle-Master in particular where I think all those abilities they gave the Battle-Master should be available for all classes - here now is my evidence where within the discussion of a Feat WotC outright gives an arbitrary example where they say knocking aside someone's shield should be something any character should be able to attempt? So why not apply that to - Parrying? Riposting? Disarm? etc.

Already they're mucking around in the corner they've painted themselves into. And the Feats still aren't strong enough.

Quote from: tenbones;902813I find this all half-ass measures. Either go all the way and make them as mechanically impacting as... SPELLS. Or don't use them.

Do you not remember the bitching and whining the Wizard class players did over The Book of Nine Swords, man?  Seriously, there's a reason 4e flopped, and it's not just because the OGL killed it, by allowing those very same whiners to stick to a game system that allows them to keep their god characters and lord their in game pretend power over their friends at the table.  They are NEVER going to make feats that will instantly kill a foe(s), which some low level spells can effectively do.  Especially not when you have a race (Variant Human) that optionally can start with said feat, at Level 1.

Quote from: tenbones;902813Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit. That works directly against their own core design concept of "Bounded Accuracy" where they even say to avoid giving out these kinds of bonuses due to the impact on it. Thirdly, as I've said in my previous posts about Fighters and the Battle-Master in particular where I think all those abilities they gave the Battle-Master should be available for all classes - here now is my evidence where within the discussion of a Feat WotC outright gives an arbitrary example where they say knocking aside someone's shield should be something any character should be able to attempt? So why not apply that to - Parrying? Riposting? Disarm? etc.

Already they're mucking around in the corner they've painted themselves into. And the Feats still aren't strong enough.

My issue with the feats mirror you on this, though.  I don't like the +1 that the weapons give, it smacks too much of the 'Weapon Specialization' BS that force-focused Fighters in previous editions to sticking with a single weapon forever, which is waaaay too common in waaaaay too much anime.

But I disagree with the Battlemaster.  The class' powers are bloated crap that does nothing but add fiddly bits for too little gain.  Besides, the Rogue has a better mechanic anyway.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;902821Do you not remember the bitching and whining the Wizard class players did over The Book of Nine Swords, man?  Seriously, there's a reason 4e flopped, and it's not just because the OGL killed it, by allowing those very same whiners to stick to a game system that allows them to keep their god characters and lord their in game pretend power over their friends at the table.  They are NEVER going to make feats that will instantly kill a foe(s), which some low level spells can effectively do.  Especially not when you have a race (Variant Human) that optionally can start with said feat, at Level 1.

Heh I remember it! It was the cherry on the shit-cake of 3e that made me feel good about retiring it. I think this cat has been skinned (Fantasy Craft) - and I think Fantasy Craft could be successfully slimmed down keeping the exact same premise. But that's a different thread and likely an entirely different game. Bo9S was, imo, a really clumsy and convoluted way to express the ideas they attempted.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;902821My issue with the feats mirror you on this, though.  I don't like the +1 that the weapons give, it smacks too much of the 'Weapon Specialization' BS that force-focused Fighters in previous editions to sticking with a single weapon forever, which is waaaay too common in waaaaay too much anime.

But I disagree with the Battlemaster.  The class' powers are bloated crap that does nothing but add fiddly bits for too little gain.  Besides, the Rogue has a better mechanic anyway.

It's bloated crap mainly because it kind of juts out like a vestigial leg on the back of 5e. And it's that way *because* it exists only to point at as a wink to 4e fans. Otherwise I'm with you. This UA post is starting to show that their own internal consistency is creaking. There is an *awful lot* of 5e tied up in Bounded Accuracy (which I think is a good thing and should remain a 5e Sacred Cow) - but could still be designed around with relative ease. I'm taking this as some small evidence they still don't know what they want 5e to be.

Still as kludge-y as ever. Also throwing +1s about in the face of bounded accuracy and stepping on bqckground's toes... Still terrible design and looks like flailing to comprehend its supposed niche.

Look, Weapon Proficiencies were to open other classes to previously restricted weapons, but it also ended up at the expense of the fighter's previous breadth. Workable, but as an optional rule it needed further enticements to really bring WP into something interesting.

NWPS were professional level skills, to do the profitable as everyday and the remarkable with the effort of a roll. They were to Fire Starting what it means to light a fire in a lean-to during a rainstorm with wet materials and the power of love. They too ended up being read as permission-based over time.

And now here we are with a kludge hobbling along that's trying to keep pace with spells after they untethered casting from being interruptable (among other things). It ain't gonna work. You screwed up both design spaces royally during 3e and the only solution to re-open this "kludge-space" is to undo the previous foundations for feats (notice I didn't say WP/NWP,) and know why you are undoing them.

The only utility from this article I found was in the first column of the first page, their supposed mission statement for the role of feats.

Quote from: tenbones;902813Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit.

I hope they're getting stern feedback about this.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902867I hope they're getting stern feedback about this.

Me too Ship. But I have a sneaking suspicion they're going to screw it up further. They need to take a hard turn-around and acknowledge what the players want. As it is now - they're just teasing everyone behind the banner of "Optional rules" layered with UA as "unofficial". So they can always say "It's okay everyone, it doesn't count." And they'd be right. But then why even post it?

It wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't directly crossed their own boundaries. Bounded Accuracy is one of the best things in 5e. While it's not broken, this is a very big step over the line in my opinion. But ultimately, it's the tip of a large iceberg for me. I'm on hiatus with 5e.

Quote from: Opaopajr;902866Still as kludge-y as ever. Also throwing +1s about in the face of bounded accuracy and stepping on bqckground's toes... Still terrible design and looks like flailing to comprehend its supposed niche.

Keep in mind that the UA stuff is mostly playtest stage to get feedback. Get on the site and TELL THEM what you think is wrong with the feats presented and hope someone listens.

So far none of the UA stuff has made it into an official book. And the Elemental Evil one doesnt count as it was originally to be published and then shunted to UA when they dropped that idea. Rather than starting in UA and moving out.

Quote from: Omega;902920Keep in mind that the UA stuff is mostly playtest stage to get feedback. Get on the site and TELL THEM what you think is wrong with the feats presented and hope someone listens.

So far none of the UA stuff has made it into an official book. And the Elemental Evil one doesnt count as it was originally to be published and then shunted to UA when they dropped that idea. Rather than starting in UA and moving out.

Actually, some of the UA material (Swashbuckler, Storm Sorcerer) appeared in the Sword Coast Guide.

Regarding feedback, WOTC always follows up on UA articles with an online survey to gauge reactions of their audience. Everyone will have an opportunity to tell them how much they dislike this material, and why. I'm rather looking forward to it.

Now that I've thought about it some more, I THINK their rationale was that a feat is taken instead of a +2 stat bonus, and a +2 stat bonus to your attack stat (STR / DEX) gives you +1 to hit anyway among other things, so it's a fair exchange.

This neglects the free feat humans get at 1st level though.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902928This neglects the free feat humans get at 1st level though.

Actually, that's an optional variant.  Most humans only get +1 to all stats.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902928This neglects the free feat humans get at 1st level though.

I wouldn't say so - you can generally pick a non-human race with a +2 in your attack stat if you want to, so the trade off still exists in terms of picking a race as a whole.

Rather than giving a +1 to hit with a weapon group, I would rather the feats allowed you to declare Advantage on an attack once per short rest. That seems useful but not unbalancing, and it aligns with the existing structure of powers.

The more  that I think of it, I prefer the idea of increasing average damage output instead of bonuses to hit. It wouldn't interfere with Bounded Accuracy and would still make me want to specialize a bit. So instead of +1 to hit, the weapon's damage die increases by one step or you count 1s as 2s (or some variant of that theme, as I suggested in the OP). Would that fit better, do you think?

I think that would be a good option - the specialist generates more output than other people but you avoid the 'you must be this tall to ride' problem. Maybe they get to add their proficiency bonus, so that it continues to scale with levels?

Quote from: Necrozius;902756In general I like what I see. I like how the designer put in some fluff about how a Feat can be created; he even provided a "bad" example. It's great that each feat is accompanied by some background info to explain the designer's rationale. I like how there are unique feats for each weapon type. The Tool Feats, though, particularly shine to me: they add a LOT of value to an area of the game that, in my opinion, was ambiguously useful.

I'm not crazy about the +1 bonus for the Weapon feats, though. I feel that it goes against the spirit of the game: getting rid of all the bonuses and penalties. If this is all that there'll be, then I suppose that's okay. But you know what's going to happen: on OBS the floodgates will be opened for thousands of 3rd party "10 new feats!" products, many of which will likely stack on bonuses like these. I hope not...

I haven't actually gotten my group to try 5e yet, so I have nothing to say about the mechanics. However, I like the article presentation. Explaining designer rationale is exactly what they should have been doing since they started designing 3e. I think it would have forgiven a lot of sins/blunted a lot of internet rage.

Has everyone passed along their feedback to them?

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;902922Actually, some of the UA material (Swashbuckler, Storm Sorcerer) appeared in the Sword Coast Guide.

Regarding feedback, WOTC always follows up on UA articles with an online survey to gauge reactions of their audience. Everyone will have an opportunity to tell them how much they dislike this material, and why. I'm rather looking forward to it.

Good catch on the Swashbuckler and Storm sorcerer.. Totally missed those.

Quote from: Necrozius;902940The more  that I think of it, I prefer the idea of increasing average damage output instead of bonuses to hit. It wouldn't interfere with Bounded Accuracy and would still make me want to specialize a bit. So instead of +1 to hit, the weapon's damage die increases by one step or you count 1s as 2s (or some variant of that theme, as I suggested in the OP). Would that fit better, do you think?

This fits with what they were saying during playtesting before the game released.  Bounded accuracy to mean that everyone was hiting in a certain range of rolls.  Hit Points were supposed to be the mechanic that determined the length and difficulty of feats.  So exactly what you say follows that philosophy more so than what they did here.

It has always been a soft spot of D&D's core combat mechanics that the damage non-magical PC's do doesn't rise with level. The only two significant fixes to this are the increase in number of attacks per round (though this is too slow to keep up with HP rise), and the RC version of BD&D, which introduces rising damage with rising weapon mastery. I've always thought this was just a bad early decision that stuck, so now we have to live with it. If someone in ~1974 had decided that fighters get some kind of damage multiplier or bonus that rises every level we would all think that was an obvious and effective way to keep the combat system 'centered' as the power level goes up.

Abother idea: you add your proficiency bonus to the damage of this weapon type.

If you're using the DMG's alternate option of proficiency dice, you add the extra die to your damage roll.

I would playtest this, but I'm not GMing at the moment.

Quote from: Larsdangly;902975It has always been a soft spot of D&D's core combat mechanics that the damage non-magical PC's do doesn't rise with level.

Check out Trailblazer (a 3.X variant) by Badaxegames.com, published 2009.

The fighter can select a damage increase at levels 5, 7, 11, 15, and 19. If you select a D8 weapon, by level 19 you'll do 3d8. Granted it is only for one specified weapon, and the player must select the option from among others, but the idea is there.

Quote from: Necrozius;902940The more  that I think of it, I prefer the idea of increasing average damage output instead of bonuses to hit. It wouldn't interfere with Bounded Accuracy and would still make me want to specialize a bit. So instead of +1 to hit, the weapon's damage die increases by one step or you count 1s as 2s (or some variant of that theme, as I suggested in the OP). Would that fit better, do you think?

Was thinking the same. Each +1 of damage eventually translates into a fair jump in damage output over time. Its small at first. But builds.

Quote from: Larsdangly;902975It has always been a soft spot of D&D's core combat mechanics that the damage non-magical PC's do doesn't rise with level.

Thats because non-magical types damage was supposed to rise with equipment. While Im not sure its stated in any of the rulebooks. It was pointed out in Dragon at least. Maybee BX or AD&D?. I'll have to dig through and see.

The main thing is that a fighters damage can peak really fast depending on the campaign and then levels somewhat until an extra attack is gained. Theres also some other factors that give fighters an edge. But overall the idea was that fighters were advancing via gear that most of the other classes couldnt equip. Very different from the magic user who advanced through sells.

Quote from: Necrozius;902940The more  that I think of it, I prefer the idea of increasing average damage output instead of bonuses to hit. It wouldn't interfere with Bounded Accuracy and would still make me want to specialize a bit. So instead of +1 to hit, the weapon's damage die increases by one step or you count 1s as 2s (or some variant of that theme, as I suggested in the OP). Would that fit better, do you think?

I agree, scaling damage would be nice, but we got several classes that already do that, see below.

Quote from: Larsdangly;902975It has always been a soft spot of D&D's core combat mechanics that the damage non-magical PC's do doesn't rise with level.

Not quite correct, the Rogue/Thief has had a scaling damage system, yes, it was conditional, but Backstab ranked up x2 damage to up to x5 (I think), and Sneak Attack adds dice every so level.  Barbarian's Rage scales up

The only class that doesn't have an innate scaling damage system is the Fighter.  Let me repeat:  The Bard,Ranger and Paladin have Magic, the Rogue has Sneak attack, the Monk has Martial Arts and the Barbarian has their Rage mechanic.  Now this is not to say that all these mechanics are equal (The Rage bonus is a bit anemic compared to the others.)  But the Fighter is only class that doesn't.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902949Has everyone passed along their feedback to them?

When the questionnaire/survey for this UA article comes out, I will fucking hammer the whole thing, in the ratings (Strongly Dislike) and the Comments section.

Most of the weapon mastery feats look kind of meh. Lots of small fiddly bonuses, like they went in with a design mandate to make sure the feats actually didn't do anything ;)
In spite of that, the sword one might be OK for rogues, given that it may help get sneak attack off on opportunity attacks.

The 'fell handed' one is..interesting. Seems like they're trying to test out pushing Advantage in new directions. I have an issue with the ability that deals [Str mod] on a miss when you have disadvantage, since overall the chance to-hit is then better than a 'normal' attack roll - two dice so same as if you'd had Advantage. Drives me crazy math-wise, despite [Str mod] being so little damage no one actually cares.

The tool use abilities are kind of cool and thematic, but I don't think I'd generally want to spend a whole feat on one, even with a +1 thrown in; feats are so rare its too big a resource cost for something so specialized.

You know, after running a year-long campaign (as the GM) and playing as a character for the past couple of months, has revealed some stuff that I don't like about D&D. At least, ways in which I'd house rule it, or hack it.

As a player, I'm finding how surprisingly frustrating it is how often I fail skill checks, even with a +8 to my roll. It also really sucks not having Inspiration. As a Rogue, getting caught off-guard, getting reduced to nearly zero hp in the first round and without any weapons drawn (and unable to do sneak attacks) made my character fucking useless. Because of the turn economy, I simply could not maneuver items and interact with the environment enough to survive, even with Cunning Action. Every fight has been like this.

I think that 5e is really close, but not quite there yet. The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class. Like, Fighters get a point of inspiration on a roll of 1 or 20 to hit, and can use a point to max out their damage roll. That sort of thing.

Quote from: Necrozius;903055I think that 5e is really close, but not quite there yet. The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class.

You could try the Hero Point rules on page 264 of the 5e DMG, and if you have the 3e Eberron campaign guide you can pilfer its ideas for unusual uses of Hero Points. I used them in 3e and got positive results.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903059You could try the Hero Point rules on page 264 of the 5e DMG, and if you have the 3e Eberron campaign guide you can pilfer its ideas for unusual uses of Hero Points. I used them in 3e and got positive results.

The 5e UA PDF on conversion for Eberron has rules for using Action Points. In fact Eberron's AP are the inspiration for the Hero Points.

QuoteAction Points
The Eberron campaign setting introduced this concept to reflect characters who are larger-than-life heroes destined for great things. Action points allow a player to add a bonus on any d20 roll so that characters can dodge or at least mitigate the effects of bad luck. This rule inspired the “Hero Points” optional rule presented in chapter 9 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
You start with 5 action points at 1st level. Each time you gain a level, you lose any unspent action points and gain a new total equal to 5 + half your level.
You can spend an action point whenever you roll a d20 to make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw. You don’t have to decide until after you make the roll and learn if it succeeded or failed. If you spend an action point, roll a d6 and add it to your d20 result, possibly changing a failure into a success. You can spend only 1 action point per roll.
In addition, whenever you fail a death saving throw, you can spend an action point to make it a success.

Quote from: Necrozius;903055The D20 is super swingy; I think I'd add in rules that dish out more Inspiration and interesting ways to use it for each class. Like, Fighters get a point of inspiration on a roll of 1 or 20 to hit, and can use a point to max out their damage roll. That sort of thing.

I have been toying with the idea of sacrificing the holy d20 and using 2d10 instead. Dis/Advantage would then be 3d10, discard highest/lowest. And maybe things like Battlemaster abilities would trigger when rolling doubles.

Quote from: Dr. Ink'n'stain;903178I have been toying with the idea of sacrificing the holy d20 and using 2d10 instead. Dis/Advantage would then be 3d10, discard highest/lowest. And maybe things like Battlemaster abilities would trigger when rolling doubles.

Then you run into new problems. The bell curve and the fact you have a range of 19 now instead of 20. The peak of a 2d10 is 11 with a 10% chance and the far ends of 2 and 20 are a 1% chance. Best/Worst 2 of 3d10 really skews things. The peak, instead of being at the end, is instead about 4 short, making advantage and disadvantage less useful.

Youd have to overhaul the rest of the system to accomodate the curve, otherwise things not going to play as well. Especially for skill checks as higher difficulties are going to get really hard to succeed now.

Yeah, I kind of figured that it would not be a quick fix, and definedly not something I would try mid-campaign anyway. I don't see the bell curve in itself as a bad thing, but modding the system to fit seems like too much hassle for a slight improvement.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;903024When the questionnaire/survey for this UA article comes out, I will fucking hammer the whole thing, in the ratings (Strongly Dislike) and the Comments section.

I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

I, too, fill out those surveys. I think we're fairly on the same wavelength, Opaopajr in terms of our discussions - though we might emphasize things slightly differently. Do you see *any* indication that WotC is making any attempts at moving in the directions of your feedback? I suspect that your results are probably the same as mine.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Thing is, those tactics you listed?  They're not really worthy of a feat.  The Shieldwall for examples is designed for mass battles, something most Fighters (who are part of a 4-5 man crew, where they're the only soldier and often the team's only weapons worker, which is less than they usually need for a good wall) will not be using during a dungeon.  

As for sand in the eye?  Improvised Action, roll to hit, target needs to make a Dex save to avoid it.  If the target fails the saving throw, it is Blinded (as per the condition in the PHB) for 1d4 (or whatever) rounds.

And barbs and hooks?  What exactly do you want them to do?  Aid in disarming?  Advantage.  Do extra damage?  Adds a +1 to damage on a punch (if armour) or on a shield swing (if on a shield.)

Those 'tactics' are too small to be in a Feat, they're too specific as per WoTC's design statement for them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903328I am too waiting for the survey on this. I pretty regularly voice my opinion on those surveys. I hope they at least create one UA about how to incorporate tactics and new weaponry/equipment in one's game. Things like hooks & barbs, shield walls, and sand in the eye are some of mankind's oldest tricks, yet you'd think they didn't exist if it didn't come in spell or feat form.

Who says you cant throw sand in someones eyes? Make a stat check. apply disadvantage on the target if they fail a DEX check.

Jesus Christ why do we need a god damn RULE FOR EVERYTHING?

You two boo-hoo-hoo like absolute morons about fixing a "problem" that doesnt exist.

Y'know, what might be good?  A new version of Malhavoc Press' Book of Iron Might, namely the Combat Maneuvers section, where you could build what type of move you wanted, clip a wing and bring the Dragon down?  Done.  Blind someone?  Done.  Bludgeon and stun them?  Done.  You could design them for a premade list, or if you memorized it, build 'em on the fly.

I LOVED that book.  I need to get me another copy of it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903374Thing is, those tactics you listed?  They're not really worthy of a feat.  The Shieldwall for examples is designed for mass battles, something most Fighters (who are part of a 4-5 man crew, where they're the only soldier and often the team's only weapons worker, which is less than they usually need for a good wall) will not be using during a dungeon.  

As for sand in the eye?  Improvised Action, roll to hit, target needs to make a Dex save to avoid it.  If the target fails the saving throw, it is Blinded (as per the condition in the PHB) for 1d4 (or whatever) rounds.

And barbs and hooks?  What exactly do you want them to do?  Aid in disarming?  Advantage.  Do extra damage?  Adds a +1 to damage on a punch (if armour) or on a shield swing (if on a shield.)

Those 'tactics' are too small to be in a Feat, they're too specific as per WoTC's design statement for them.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FEATS, I AM TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING ON TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT ADVICE!

Clearer?

Look, I think Improvised Action is great and not lading the game with more widgets is important. BUT by now previous editions and other games had moved into emulating strat&tactics and equipment through new spitballed rules. Things that would work on various scales, not just the ludicrous assumption that all tactics must be battlefield sized in scope, and all future non-magic equipment are shrugworthy ad hoc.

However see where we are right now? Everything is leaning heavily towards new spells, BM maneuvers (hmm, sounds eww?), and ever-inflating magic items (the AL ones that obviate game challenges are pretty nuts, like whip of party feat: alert, goggles of nightvision, etc.). What sort of incentive is there to create setting-referential generalized solutions when you can skip to system-referential exceptional solutions?

As for hooks and barbs, like nets and lassos, they helped humanity subdue higher speed land, let alone air, and sea creatures, often several times the size of a human. The use is obvious -- it strains fliers, runners, and swimmers messing with their maneuver game. Yes, it's a "flying wizard killer" because you just need a hook or so to lock them in range and  bring them into submission.

Quote from: Omega;903381Who says you cant throw sand in someones eyes? Make a stat check. apply disadvantage on the target if they fail a DEX check.

Jesus Christ why do we need a god damn RULE FOR EVERYTHING?

You two boo-hoo-hoo like absolute morons about fixing a "problem" that doesnt exist.

Look, don't play stupid, you were also in the topic with tenbones and I. That went over issues of providing tactical examples as baselines in design. Sand in the eye would be base example for future powder-based attacks.

However when I MADE AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF A NEW POWDER-BASED EQUIPMENT IN THAT VERY SAME TOPIC I HAD TO RELY ON ALREADY-MADE SPELL DESIGN. Which gets into other design questions, such as 'am I stepping on the toes of spells unnecessarily?', and 'if I am cribbing from spells, and 3/4 of the classes can cast spells, why don I just make another spell?', etc. And this speaks of nothing about party coordination creating tactical advantages.

 There is an obvious design gap here -- and for new and old GMs alike "*shrug* ad hoc Improvised Action covers everything!" is AN INADEQUATE ANSWER. Some of us want to design things without ending up falling back to the same "fuck it! make it a system-referential solution, the players want to ignore the setting anyway and there's little suggestions on how to fashion one's own gear that would remain compliant with the system's assumed paradigms." We want to stop walking the same irritating path of the last two editions.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FEATS, I AM TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING ON TACTICS AND EQUIPMENT ADVICE!

Clearer?

No, it's not.  I'm not exactly sure what you want that won't end up being too focused and fiddly.  Like the old 3.x Feats were.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392Look, I think Improvised Action is great and not lading the game with more widgets is important. BUT by now previous editions and other games had moved into emulating strat&tactics and equipment through new spitballed rules.

And every time they do, players complain about complexity.  This isn't the only board that does it, and it's not just the grognards who do.  The more they add, the harder it becomes to not make something overpowered.  Combat and Tactic and that 2e Races book are a perfect example of trying to expand a game and suddenly losing control of the rules they laid out.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392Things that would work on various scales, not just the ludicrous assumption that all tactics must be battlefield sized in scope, and all future non-magic equipment are shrugworthy ad hoc.

However see where we are right now? Everything is leaning heavily towards new spells, BM maneuvers (hmm, sounds eww?), and ever-inflating magic items (the AL ones that obviate game challenges are pretty nuts, like whip of party feat: alert, goggles of nightvision, etc.). What sort of incentive is there to create setting-referential generalized solutions when you can skip to system-referential exceptional solutions?

OK, I've not seen anything of this sort, where'd you get that information, so I can read it for myself and see how ridiculous it is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392As for hooks and barbs, like nets and lassos, they helped humanity subdue higher speed land, let alone air, and sea creatures, often several times the size of a human. The use is obvious -- it strains fliers, runners, and swimmers messing with their maneuver game. Yes, it's a "flying wizard killer" because you just need a hook or so to lock them in range and  bring them into submission.

Which are all highly specialized pieces of gear that often weren't used outside of a mass combat, or hunting for specific prey on a highly specific piece of terrain, like an ocean.  A lot of the bigger monsters in D&D require siege level gear to take down.  And are often not exactly what PC wills be usually doing, as they don't gather up in teams of 20+.

Quote from: Opaopajr;903392There is an obvious design gap here -- and for new and old GMs alike "*shrug* ad hoc Improvised Action covers everything!" is AN INADEQUATE ANSWER. Some of us want to design things without ending up falling back to the same "fuck it! make it a system-referential solution, the players want to ignore the setting anyway and there's little suggestions on how to fashion one's own gear that would remain compliant with the system's assumed paradigms." We want to stop walking the same irritating path of the last two editions.

No, YOU think there's a design gap, and seemingly want to make the game more complex and system heavy as 3.x was.  Which frankly, is unnecessary, as Pathfinder can easily scratch that itch.  But if you don't want to play PF, then steal what you want from it and fit it to work in 5e, which isn't as hard as you're implying.

Make up some shit that your table thinks is cool.  It has worked in every edition bar 3rd.

Survey's up on the site...

Wait, someone needs an official rule to adjudicate throwing a lasso or sand in someone's eyes? Isn't that what GMs do? Is this for solo play?

So what are people's complaints about the Tool Feats in general, personally, I like them.  They're not really game breaking from what I can see.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903921So what are people's complaints about the Tool Feats in general, personally, I like them.  They're not really game breaking from what I can see.

I like them and they fit the whole design scheme 5e seems to be rolling with. And opens up the option to sit down and learn new tools.

Quote from: dbm;903898Survey's up on the site...

I did it.

A thought that occurred to me when they asked what kind of feats I thought they should be going for: feats for new optional subsystems of the game, not bloat for the already well-served existing systems. For instance, dominion management feats, or sailing feats, or feats related to fear / horror /madness, or honor feats, etc.

I'd like feats to make new Bonus actions available - they are a cool subsystem which gives you choices to make every round.

Quote from: Omega;903979I like them and they fit the whole design scheme 5e seems to be rolling with. And opens up the option to sit down and learn new tools.

I learned something new this week, which as a DM shames me, you can learn new languages and tool proficiencies by using the Down Time system (which I use the word loosely) and I haven't completely read everything you can do in it, yet.  And more importantly, it's not tied to leveling, you can in theory spend time in a 'town' learning at level 1 or 10 or whatever and gain more languages/tools.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904086I learned something new this week, which as a DM shames me...

Don't feel ashamed, these rulesets are so complex everyone's bound to miss a few things.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904106Don't feel ashamed, these rulesets are so complex everyone's bound to miss a few things.

Complex?  Dood, I ran AD&D 2e and 3.x for years, and some 4e, 5e is easy compared to those.  

Sadly, it's me not reading everything as a good GM should have.

Theres also an option in the DMG for picking up feats outside your level limits. Its supposed to be rare or one-time rewards. But it opens up even more ground.

Also thinking on it. If a DM doesnt allow feats from levelling. Granting them only from teachers and such would be a great way to introduce and control what players have access too.

Quote from: Omega;904136Theres also an option in the DMG for picking up feats outside your level limits. Its supposed to be rare or one-time rewards. But it opens up even more ground.

Also thinking on it. If a DM doesnt allow feats from levelling. Granting them only from teachers and such would be a great way to introduce and control what players have access too.

That suggestion honestly made me go "Oooh." and wiggle my fingers eagerly.  Sub-quest branches are unfolding for my family's 5e game as we speak.

Flarkin' 'ell, I really need to sit down and reread all the books, how could I miss that?  Can I get page citations for the feats thing?

Quote from: Omega;904136Theres also an option in the DMG for picking up feats outside your level limits. Its supposed to be rare or one-time rewards. But it opens up even more ground.

Also thinking on it. If a DM doesnt allow feats from levelling. Granting them only from teachers and such would be a great way to introduce and control what players have access too.

Oddly enough - I've been given stink eye for pointing this out, with the assumptions I'm powergaming. I think it's one of the best optional rules in the DMG. Of course, most people that I know that play 5e or talk about it on forums completely ignore this rule. Or don't know it even exists. I suspect it's because it makes all the new-bloods feel like it makes the DM "too powerful" or whatever. /shrug. Whatever. It seems most people in these parts hate Feats anyhow, and mostly as a reaction to 3.x/PF (justifiably), rather than being a potential good mechanic to solve problems of scale and taste.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;904138That suggestion honestly made me go "Oooh." and wiggle my fingers eagerly.  Sub-quest branches are unfolding for my family's 5e game as we speak.

Tie to Faction-rewards. Also in the DMG. Then you have nearly endless RP potential to give players stuff to *actively* pursue.

Quote from: tenbones;904250Whatever. It seems most people in these parts hate Feats anyhow, and mostly as a reaction to 3.x/PF (justifiably), rather than being a potential good mechanic to solve problems of scale and taste.

I'd turn a lot of the PHB feats into class feature options in that case, like other fighter fighting-styles, or alternatives to skill expertise, or archetype fodder.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904272I'd turn a lot of the PHB feats into class feature options in that case, like other fighter fighting-styles, or alternatives to skill expertise, or archetype fodder.

That's not a bad idea. My only problem with it is that the structure of classes are pretty set in terms of ability acquisition for the class. Doing that with Fighters would likewise require a lot of restructuring for all the classes in various degrees.

I'm just thinking off the top of my head here. Technically speaking *all* Feats are class-options, they're just acquired at a specified rate that is too slow imo. My big issue is the segregation of maneuvers into the Battlemaster (among other things). You could easily just ramp up Feat acquisition to your taste and add an additional Pre-Req if you so choose for certain Feats to be gained by specific classes in this particular manner.

I still maintain Feats need more scalability in 5e. This is an aside from Opaopa's ideas of Tool and Weapon qualities that I think are salient points. I think people resistant to those ideas are scared of bloat, but I think it's all in the details, since this mechanic already exists. One could argue this concept has existed since 1e when polearms could be set to receive a charge (but that might be too nitpicky for some).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904186Flarkin' 'ell, I really need to sit down and reread all the books, how could I miss that?  Can I get page citations for the feats thing?

DMG pg 227  Other Rewards: > Marks of Prestige sub-section pg 228: > Training: sub-section pg 231 - examples of training rewards were. Inspiration. A skill. Or... A feat. Had to find the trainer and spend the downtime.

Quote from: Omega;904292DMG pg 227  Other Rewards: > Marks of Prestige sub-section pg 228: > Training: sub-section pg 231 - examples of training rewards were. Inspiration. A skill. Or... A feat. Had to find the trainer and spend the downtime.

Thank you very much.

Quote from: tenbones;904251Tie to Faction-rewards. Also in the DMG. Then you have nearly endless RP potential to give players stuff to *actively* pursue.

This is a great idea. I'll probably leave the Feats in the PHB alone - the players consider those "fair game" when they level up and it's never a good idea to take stuff away from them or give them extra hoops to jump through. But the "Faction Rewards" idea sounds like a perfect way to introduce new Feats (or perhaps "Boons") into the campaign without getting carried away with them.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;904333This is a great idea. I'll probably leave the Feats in the PHB alone - the players consider those "fair game" when they level up and it's never a good idea to take stuff away from them or give them extra hoops to jump through. But the "Faction Rewards" idea sounds like a perfect way to introduce new Feats (or perhaps "Boons") into the campaign without getting carried away with them.

Yeah! Make them work for it. And it'll give you PLENTY to develop on your end - NPC, motivations for the faction itself, faction enemies, allies etc. Seriously it's a powerful incentive for the right kinds of players.

A universe of synchronicity got in the way of everything I've been doing the past 3 weeks, so indulge me for returning to respond...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903407No, it's not.  I'm not exactly sure what you want that won't end up being too focused and fiddly.  Like the old 3.x Feats were.

And every time they do, players complain about complexity.  This isn't the only board that does it, and it's not just the grognards who do.  The more they add, the harder it becomes to not make something overpowered.  Combat and Tactic and that 2e Races book are a perfect example of trying to expand a game and suddenly losing control of the rules they laid out.

I hate 2e Combat and Tactics and would never use that example. But!, there are countless examples within that same edition where discussions of strat & tactics, often with specialized equipment, come in as a spitballed discussion to emulate setting-referential desires.

Just go pick up Complete Handbook Fighter and read just about any of the other chapters outside of Group WPs and Style Specializations. The majority involved variations on the Called Shots (an obvious corollary to Improvised Action), but were also seeded with battle proceedure, tactical formations value discussions, and guidance on handling special circumstance. It was not just a widget factory, it was a dialog with the reader to consider context before the solution. It talked about (honest-to-god) roleplaying challenges, such as kit integration within coherent setting and campaign demands, or the formation of formalized dueling and jousting. And that's just one book...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903407OK, I've not seen anything of this sort, where'd you get that information, so I can read it for myself and see how ridiculous it is.

Go check the progression of Adventure League magical item rewards, and their allotment, over the seasons (years).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903407Which are all highly specialized pieces of gear that often weren't used outside of a mass combat, or hunting for specific prey on a highly specific piece of terrain, like an ocean.  A lot of the bigger monsters in D&D require siege level gear to take down.  And are often not exactly what PC wills be usually doing, as they don't gather up in teams of 20+.

And how do you know that? Hirelings were "reintroduced" in 5e (they never really left, just sidelined due to eye-rolling comicbook team antics). And specialized gear deserve a place because they often were reintroduced as "weaponry of the moment." You are operating with 3e/4e-isms clearly in the forefront of play expectations and expecting everyone else to blithely play along.

Stop that. Other people who liked other editions are trying to twist 5e into NOT doing that all over again. I wholly reject your premise here outright, and I have decades of previous editions to back up my playstyle point as being viable.

If we stay with the presumed paradigm of the past two editions that you'll always have your optimal gear/spells/weaponry when needed then you're getting right back into the same quagmire. But 5e is trying to bridge that playstyle divide by theoretically attempting to offer an openneess to different things to mutually exclusive parties. Yet in the new material we keep receiving only the same disagreeable direction that made us leave in the first place -- which is inexcusable considering how solid and open 5e's chassis is, and how it goes against their stated community goals.

For example, 5e encourages adjudicating for variant weaponry analogs when faced with ad hoc weaponry, instead of defaulting into the Improvised Weaponry rule solely, so this lack of variation of known ad hoc setting-experiences is inexcusable. Farm equipment were notoriously pressed into weaponry use, so therefore too harpoons and gaffs are obviously a logical setting-contextual extention of the same principle. And yet we still have no designer-to-audience dialog on how to represent such variation, (with any subsequent advantages or penalties,) within the current edition's paradigm. Basically, if it ain't a character-based special exclusionary rule (race/class/feature/feat), it apparently ain't worth the designers' time and space -- and that solution is garbage on its face to gamers who don't share that old WotC song and dance.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903407No, YOU think there's a design gap, and seemingly want to make the game more complex and system heavy as 3.x was.  Which frankly, is unnecessary, as Pathfinder can easily scratch that itch.  But if you don't want to play PF, then steal what you want from it and fit it to work in 5e, which isn't as hard as you're implying.

Pathfinder is 3e-isms on crack. There is nothing I like about 3e, and even less in PF. And that still has nothing to do with the design gap in responding to setting-referential guideline discussions. You are arguing phantoms from your mind about me, and it just looks foolish.

You are presuming past editions wrote things like stereo instructions and everyone used them either verbatim, or threw caution and restraint to the wind. That sort of thinking leaves a massive gap where reality lies. Older editions talked to us players like adults, expecting us to naturally solve our own problems to our liking, but also asking us to give meaningful thought to setting and the needs of playability -- hence their solution examples.

There is little of that here in 5e nowadays with respect to tactics and gear. I am left with caltrops, ball bearings, and oil flasks to suss out all my design challenges. Oh, sorry, and Improvised Action and Improvised Weaponry. Think about that... This is laughably barren, with little talk on how they came to such rationales, mechanics, and difficulties. And at this point, it's really unacceptable if they are promoting this as some sort of "big tent edition."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;904106Don't feel ashamed, these rulesets are so complex everyone's bound to miss a few things.

It's more an organizational issue with 5e. A lot of material bounces around embedded within other sections. I've seen much worse, but with a little more editing could have been far easier.

Quote from: Omega;904292DMG pg 227  Other Rewards: > Marks of Prestige sub-section pg 228: > Training: sub-section pg 231 - examples of training rewards were. Inspiration. A skill. Or... A feat. Had to find the trainer and spend the downtime.

This alone turns feats from a fixed "linear" resource, á la spell slots per level, to a "quadratic" (shoot me now, please...) resource, á la new spells to learn.

The challenge is re-weighing the mechanics in light of their differing availability shift. Especially so, this is, whether any of their potentially "always on" quality then eclipses spells themselves. But this is potentially one of the better solutions with regards to making feats more than a half-hearted garbage kludge.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405I hate 2e Combat and Tactics and would never use that example. But!, there are countless examples within that same edition where discussions of strat & tactics, often with specialized equipment, come in as a spitballed discussion to emulate setting-referential desires.

Just go pick up Complete Handbook Fighter and read just about any of the other chapters outside of Group WPs and Style Specializations. The majority involved variations on the Called Shots (an obvious corollary to Improvised Action), but were also seeded with battle proceedure, tactical formations value discussions, and guidance on handling special circumstance. It was not just a widget factory, it was a dialog with the reader to consider context before the solution. It talked about (honest-to-god) roleplaying challenges, such as kit integration within coherent setting and campaign demands, or the formation of formalized dueling and jousting. And that's just one book...

Most of which, at least in my gaming area, were never used because they were considered too fiddly (and frankly, worried the Magic User Players that it would some how diminish their favourite class.  Yeap, I got that argument as far back as 1989.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405Go check the progression of Adventure League magical item rewards, and their allotment, over the seasons (years).

Will do, thanks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405And how do you know that? Hirelings were "reintroduced" in 5e (they never really left, just sidelined due to eye-rolling comicbook team antics). And specialized gear deserve a place because they often were reintroduced as "weaponry of the moment." You are operating with 3e/4e-isms clearly in the forefront of play expectations and expecting everyone else to blithely play along.

And those hirelings are rarely used so far in my experience.  Personally, I dread using them, because I forget they're around most of the time.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405Stop that. Other people who liked other editions are trying to twist 5e into NOT doing that all over again. I wholly reject your premise here outright, and I have decades of previous editions to back up my playstyle point as being viable.

Which is just that.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405If we stay with the presumed paradigm of the past two editions that you'll always have your optimal gear/spells/weaponry when needed then you're getting right back into the same quagmire. But 5e is trying to bridge that playstyle divide by theoretically attempting to offer an openneess to different things to mutually exclusive parties. Yet in the new material we keep receiving only the same disagreeable direction that made us leave in the first place -- which is inexcusable considering how solid and open 5e's chassis is, and how it goes against their stated community goals.

It's been more than two editions in my experience.  People don't change their playstyles that quickly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405For example, 5e encourages adjudicating for variant weaponry analogs when faced with ad hoc weaponry, instead of defaulting into the Improvised Weaponry rule solely, so this lack of variation of known ad hoc setting-experiences is inexcusable. Farm equipment were notoriously pressed into weaponry use, so therefore too harpoons and gaffs are obviously a logical setting-contextual extention of the same principle. And yet we still have no designer-to-audience dialog on how to represent such variation, (with any subsequent advantages or penalties,) within the current edition's paradigm. Basically, if it ain't a character-based special exclusionary rule (race/class/feature/feat), it apparently ain't worth the designers' time and space -- and that solution is garbage on its face to gamers who don't share that old WotC song and dance.

I'm sincerely confused.  On one hand you're wanting more rules about edge cases and yet you're saying that older editions didn't need them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405Pathfinder is 3e-isms on crack. There is nothing I like about 3e, and even less in PF. And that still has nothing to do with the design gap in responding to setting-referential guideline discussions. You are arguing phantoms from your mind about me, and it just looks foolish.

I don't care much for 3e anymore either, but what you're asking for sounds like a lot of what they were trying to do.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405You are presuming past editions wrote things like stereo instructions and everyone used them either verbatim, or threw caution and restraint to the wind. That sort of thinking leaves a massive gap where reality lies. Older editions talked to us players like adults, expecting us to naturally solve our own problems to our liking, but also asking us to give meaningful thought to setting and the needs of playability -- hence their solution examples.

Actually, and this may be just a local thing, but I've noticed that unless it's written down as a 'yes you can!' a lot of people will assume that it cannot be done.

Quote from: Opaopajr;904405There is little of that here in 5e nowadays with respect to tactics and gear. I am left with caltrops, ball bearings, and oil flasks to suss out all my design challenges. Oh, sorry, and Improvised Action and Improvised Weaponry. Think about that... This is laughably barren, with little talk on how they came to such rationales, mechanics, and difficulties. And at this point, it's really unacceptable if they are promoting this as some sort of "big tent edition."

Again, it's being left up to the DM to handle the edge cases and specialized equipment.

I think Opaopajr's idea about gear is a good idea.

You see it in a lot of "modern" games and I certainly think it's a valid component towards closing the gap on "caster vs. non-caster" scale. I mean, honestly, how much more overhead is it that Wizards get spells that absorb fairly large chunks of pagespace in a books in terms of how these spells impact the mechanics of the game as well as perpetuating certain assumptions and conceits of the game narrative - PLUS they scale mechanically, over options that could be limited to weapon and tool use that could offer certain classes/sub-classes - more options (preferably that scale). In terms of complexity? I think it's apples to apples. It can't be more, since spells vastly outnumber the taxonomy of weapon-types/groups in your bog-standard D&D game.

Edit: I think there's this knee-jerk reaction to the very idea - when it's sitting right there in the book, and has been there since Basic. Spells *are* the standard for increased complexity. I don't think what Opaopajr. is suggesting even comes remotely close to that fact. Does it increase it? Sure. But only for those that will directly benefit from it - non-casters mostly. And having said that - if one can play the "power-bloat card" on that, I'd love to hear how all the calls for more spells and more magic-systems and more spell-casting classes don't get that same reaction? (btw - I'm *not* trying to single you out Chris, I'm just talking in general).

Christopher, it sounds like we have such divergent experiences as to truly hamper mutual conversation about this. I could continue using the same Fantasy RPG vein, but if you never used it, there'll be no correlation and we'll just continue in circles. Let me see if I can carry on with tenbones' summation by using another RPG genre, the nature of "generally available" technology in modern/sci-fi games to bridge the power gap of exclusionary-design.

In a lot of modern/sci-fi RPGs "generally available" technology eventually equals, or even often supercedes, most other sources to power, including "quadratic sources" (/spits) such as psionics/magic/'disciplines'/'decking programs' and the like. The limiter then on such widely available technology then shifts into Wealth, Availability, and Specialization. Thus if the GM wants to kit out his "martial-only" players to the nines in their campaign they can readily do so as long as the GM adjusts access to Wealth, Availability, and Mission Relevance.

So, as in the laughable "power balance discussions" in Fantasy RPG genre between Knock spell and Lockpicking, any table can ramp up, or focus shift, their power dynamics by the mere adjustment of these 'Equipment Dials'. Basically it asks players: can you afford it, can you use it legally, and how generally applicable can it be used.

e.g. Want that crack special forces combat for a session arc? Increase the availability of military-grade weaponry, limit its 'legalized' field presence to that specific mission sphere, make it bad for stealth runs, and restrict back materiel when mission is done.

What this does is put setting rationales forefront. Furthermore it is more quickly interchangeable and its power more easily managed by GM setting adjustments. And this very same has been done before in the Fantasy RPG genre, the problem is it has been forgotten -- just like hirelings, encounter first impression reactions, et cetera.

We're only going to get power inflation faster from ignoring this very old design lesson. Reason is because that limits the discussion to only player-sided, character-specialized designs. And unless we re-introduce "spell/spell slot stripping" or "spellcasting muting/interruption," (another very old lesson from ages past,) to viably limit that "quadratic availability" (/spits three times) then we are getting into GMs receiving more resources to add to their game that they can never truly manage by taking away.