Skills, feats, areas of knowledge in Next: incremental complexity

Benoist · April 24, 2013, 01:26:05 PM

L&L Column about this topic: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130422

Now that sounds a lot more precise, as far as the organization of the game's going to be.

That sounds like something I'd like to check out when it hits the LGS.

Sacrosanct · April 24, 2013, 01:42:25 PM

Yeah, I mentioned that in the other thread. I still think they need to get rid of the term "feats". Much like the swastika, it was an pretty innocuous term until some asshats got a hold of it and now there is a clear association with something horrible (3e in this case

I'd prefer class abilities, or package abilities or some such, since they are organized in packages.

Yeah, that's right. I just compared 3e to Nazis.

thedungeondelver · April 24, 2013, 01:56:15 PM

Quote from: sacrosanct;648840yeah, i mentioned that in the other thread. I still think they need to get rid of the term "feats". Much like the swastika, it was an pretty innocuous term until some asshats got a hold of it and now there is a clear association with something horrible (3e in this case

i'd prefer class abilities, or package abilities or some such, since they are organized in packages.

Yeah, that's right. I just compared 3e to nazis.

...

Wow.

Sacrosanct · April 24, 2013, 01:58:23 PM

Quote from: thedungeondelver;648844...

Wow.

I was half joking. Chill. But I do believe the use of the term "feats" is problematic for two reasons:

1. It reminds people of 3e, which everyone but fans of 3e hates
2. They don't really work like in 3e, so it lends to confusion.

jadrax · April 24, 2013, 02:00:28 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648840Yeah, that's right. I just compared 3e to Nazis.

That is unfair, the Nazis at least looked good. ;o)

dbm · April 24, 2013, 02:30:09 PM

Aaaanny way...

The problem with this implementation is the '+1 to a stat' option. Half the time this will give no mechanical benefit. I thought one of the design goals was to avoid dead levels?

Sacrosanct · April 24, 2013, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: dbm;648863Aaaanny way...

The problem with this implementation is the '+1 to a stat' option. Half the time this will give no mechanical benefit. I thought one of the design goals was to avoid dead levels?

There are a bunch of problems with this that they haven't really thought out yet. For example, when a monk hits level 20, all of his stats become 20 anyway (which would be the equivalent of getting dozens of feats that no other class gets if each feat = a "+1 bonus"). Also, the attribute cap is 20, IIRC. So when you hit level 12 and you're a fighter and you're already maxed at STR and CON, do you start increasing an attribute that you hardly use? That seems to be a very weak trade off.

Instead of making feats completely optional, they should make feat choices optional, and have the basic version with these feats baked in as class abilities, just like AD&D or B/X, and leave attribute increases alone.

YMMV of course.

crkrueger · April 24, 2013, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: dbm;648863Aaaanny way...

The problem with this implementation is the '+1 to a stat' option. Half the time this will give no mechanical benefit. I thought one of the design goals was to avoid dead levels?

Point.

I'd assume though that most of the crowd who can't take a dead level would be doing Feats anyway.

jadrax · April 24, 2013, 02:57:23 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648867For example, when a monk hits level 20, all of his stats become 20 anyway (which would be the equivalent of getting dozens of feats that no other class gets if each feat = a "+1 bonus").

They may well have removed that class feature, it doesn't seem to be that popular overall from what I have seen.

Haffrung · April 24, 2013, 03:10:27 PM

Quote from: dbm;648863Aaaanny way...

The problem with this implementation is the '+1 to a stat' option. Half the time this will give no mechanical benefit. I thought one of the design goals was to avoid dead levels?

The problem is hanging onto the 3-18 attribute values that have no game effect, instead of using them to derive a modifier at char gen and then ditching them. The +1 stat could become a +1 modifier and actually mean something.

Phillip · April 24, 2013, 03:22:42 PM

Quote from: Haffrung;648881The problem is hanging onto the 3-18 attribute values that have no game effect, instead of using them to derive a modifier at char gen and then ditching them. The +1 stat could become a +1 modifier and actually mean something.

The "values" originated as dice rolls. Even that dice range was not among the options presented for generating characters in 1E AD&D, and the whole business of "rolling up" seems today widely deprecated in favor of some sort of "build" system.

So, yeah, it might be more a matter of 'tradition' for its own sake than a carefully considered element.

Opaopajr · April 24, 2013, 05:25:46 PM

The Proficiency method runs closer to how I use things. Proficiency in mine allows me to wave more attribute (ability?) rolls, and anyone can still attempt things they are not proficient in, but otherwise it is pretty close. Much preferred over Skills and a welcome addition to Next.

RPGPundit · April 30, 2013, 12:23:50 AM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648840I was half joking. Chill. But I do believe the use of the term "feats" is problematic for two reasons:

1. It reminds people of 3e, which everyone but fans of 3e hates

The problem with your statement is that in fact its not true. There's lots of people who aren't particularly "fans" of 3e but don't despise it.

Now, if you had been talking about 4e, that'd be a different story...

RPGPundit

Spinachcat · April 30, 2013, 01:47:55 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;650556There's lots of people who aren't particularly "fans" of 3e but don't despise it.

The Vichy?

Dirk Remmecke · April 30, 2013, 06:21:59 AM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648867Instead of making feats completely optional, they should make feat choices optional, and have the basic version with these feats baked in as class abilities, just like AD&D or B/X, and leave attribute increases alone.

This. A thousand times this.
I can't believe that they don't go that route. It's so easy for compatibility between variants, it's easy on new players.

Quote from: Haffrung;648881
Quote from: Phillip;648885The "values" originated as dice rolls. Even that dice range was not among the options presented for generating characters in 1E AD&D, and the whole business of "rolling up" seems today widely deprecated in favor of some sort of "build" system.

So, yeah, it might be more a matter of 'tradition' for its own sake than a carefully considered element.
The problem is hanging onto the 3-18 attribute values that have no game effect, instead of using them to derive a modifier at char gen and then ditching them. The +1 stat could become a +1 modifier and actually mean something.

I could live with ditching the 3-18 scores and going for the modifier instead. The 3.x-based Lanfeust RPG did that years ago (and changed so much more that it also ditched compatibility with 3.x...). I could even live with character creation by standard array (of modifiers), as long as there is an optional 3d6 roll and a table.
Old school players could still note their initial roll on the character sheet (to have that familiar 3-18 range in front of them) but all that really matters is the modifier.