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.
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. :P
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. :p
...
Wow.
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.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;648840Yeah, that's right. I just compared 3e to Nazis. :P
That is unfair, the Nazis at least looked good. ;o)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: RPGPundit;650556There's lots of people who aren't particularly "fans" of 3e but don't despise it.
The Vichy?
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;648881Quote 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.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;650595Old 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.
Except for tables that use "roll under" attribute rolls, which a lot of TSR-style D&D players use (and not just old school ones). Also, I fear this would push attribute inflation because too many players would not want any zeros (let alone any negative numbers) on their character sheets under attributes. I would go with it if the total of your attribute modifiers had to be zero.
However, this would bork their current +1 to an attribute if you don't take a feat system as I know a lot of non-powergamers who would strongly object to a +1 modifier per level.
Quote from: CRKrueger;648871Point.
I'd assume though that most of the crowd who can't take a dead level would be doing Feats anyway.
When you're rolling for hit points each level (or gaining a set amount), then there's no such thing as a dead level anyway.
Quote from: One Horse Town;650616When you're rolling for hit points each level (or gaining a set amount), then there's no such thing as a dead level anyway.
Beat me to it.:)
Quote from: RandallS;650615Except for tables that use "roll under" attribute rolls, which a lot of TSR-style D&D players use (and not just old school ones). Also, I fear this would push attribute inflation because too many players would not want any zeros (let alone any negative numbers) on their character sheets under attributes. I would go with it if the total of your attribute modifiers had to be zero.
However, this would bork their current +1 to an attribute if you don't take a feat system as I know a lot of non-powergamers who would strongly object to a +1 modifier per level.
Looks more like a class power or a +1 every 3 levels.
Feats WILL stop be engaging with Next. It is a barrier to uptake. However, I am a 2E player therefore I don't count for much!
Am I right in thinking that they are proposing to have something called character class, something called skills, something called feats, and now something called backgrounds, the last three of which all do more or less the same thing (i.e. give you special abilities that help you either optimise or define your character, depending on what floats your boat) but in subtly different ways? This seems overly complex to me, even if feats, skills and backgrounds are optional.
Quote from: Glazer;650639Am I right in thinking that they are proposing to have something called character class, something called skills, something called feats, and now something called backgrounds, the last three of which all do more or less the same thing (i.e. give you special abilities that help you either optimise or define your character, depending on what floats your boat) but in subtly different ways? This seems overly complex to me, even if feats, skills and backgrounds are optional.
Skills come in backgrounds, which are basically a themed collection of skills, plus a standalone trait.
Feats can be bundled into specialties (such as Archer), which indicate which feats to take as you gain levels.
So at character generation, you select a race, a background (which includes your skills), a class, and a specialty (which includes feats). After that, you just take the prescribed feats for your class and specialty as you progress.
If you want to dial it back, just create a straight Fighter and take the ability bonuses at level-up instead of feats. If you want more customization, ignore specialties and choose feats a la carte as you level up.
Seems reasonably straightforward and flexible.
Quote from: Haffrung;650648Skills come in backgrounds, which are basically a themed collection of skills, plus a standalone trait.
Feats can be bundled into specialties (such as Archer), which indicate which feats to take as you gain levels.
So at character generation, you select a race, a background (which includes your skills), a class, and a specialty (which includes feats). After that, you just take the prescribed feats for your class and specialty as you progress.
If you want to dial it back, just create a straight Fighter and take the ability bonuses at level-up instead of feats. If you want more customization, ignore specialties and choose feats a la carte as you level up.
Seems reasonably straightforward and flexible.
Pretty much. And honestly, specialty feat packages are a pretty good way of handling class bloat. In AD&D, there were dozens of classes, especially if you factored in the ones from Dragon Magazine. Specialties in Next pretty much just say, "Instead of separate fighter, dualist, archer, bounty hunter, samurai, etc classes, just go with fighter and choose the appropriate specialty."
And the 3e char op crowd can easily ignore the packages if they want, and choose feats like they would in 3e.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;650652And the 3e char op crowd can easily ignore the packages if they want, and choose feats like they would in 3e.
A la carte menus of shit you can stick on your character will
always result in massive power disparity with packages and evolve into super builds.
It is simply the nature of the beast. The sheer volume of these tidbits that get released make predicting all the ways in which they interact with the core impossible to keep straight.
Its like WOTC is a mad scientist that thinks he can control his creation
this time because of all the lessons learned from the past. Its all a delusion that will send Next right into the 3E bin unless they wise up.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;650697A la carte menus of shit you can stick on your character will always result in massive power disparity with packages and evolve into super builds.
It is simply the nature of the beast. The sheer volume of these tidbits that get released make predicting all the ways in which they interact with the core impossible to keep straight.
Its like WOTC is a mad scientist that thinks he can control his creation this time because of all the lessons learned from the past. Its all a delusion that will send Next right into the 3E bin unless they wise up.
Sorry, I don't see the problem.
I don't like A la Carte, so I won't play Next that way. That doesn't mean other groups don't have that option if they want. It's not like Jimmy's version of Next to emulate 3e over there is a table I'm forced to join. Let Jimmy play how he wants. There are things about Next that could be improved, but this isn't one of them, IMO, because I can play how I want and Jimmy the Char OP Fiend can play how he wants.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;650700Sorry, I don't see the problem. I don't like A la Carte, so I won't play Next that way. That doesn't mean other groups don't have that option if they want. It's not like Jimmy's version of Next to emulate 3e over there is a table I'm forced to join. Let Jimmy play how he wants. There are things about Next that could be improved, but this isn't one of them, IMO, because I can play how I want and Jimmy the Char OP Fiend can play how he wants.
You can do that now. If next can't do that
at the same table then its really a pointless release. We already have every flavor of D&D anyone could want for separate gaming groups.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;650717You can do that now. If next can't do that at the same table then its really a pointless release. We already have every flavor of D&D anyone could want for separate gaming groups.
Maybe I'm not following. In every edition of D&D, most tables have house rules that are different from other tables. Maybe not so much in 4e because that seems to be the RAW crowd, but for most other editions it seems true. Next doesn't seem to be any different, IMO.
The only difference I can see is that if I have a person at my table who doesn't like char op and just wants to play a packaged theme similar to a class in 1e, and another person at my table who prefers to create their own feat theme (everything at every game table in every edition still requires DM approval, no?), they both can do that.
At the same table.
In 3e, that's hard to do because the game pretty much forces every player to pick and choose feats and multi-class options. In AD&D, that's hard to do because things are packaged into classes and you can't really pick and choose what class abilities you want. Next is allowing both styles of play, at the same table.
So the edition progression of chargen is...
0e/BX = Pick Race or Class
1e = Pick Race + Class
2e = Pick Race + Class (+ Kit)
3e= Pick Race + Class + Feats + Prestige Class
4e = Pick Race + Class + Feats + Paragon Class + Epic Class
5e = Pick Race + Class + Background + Specialty
OR Pick Race + Class + Custom Background + Custom Specialty
I don't need 5e's chargen complexity, but I see its value as a half-measure trying to please everyone. The build guys can either crunch the value of combos or just min/max via the custom approach and then bitch and moan at the table when other players just choose options they like.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650845So the edition progression of chargen is...
0e/BX = Pick Race or Class
1e = Pick Race + Class
2e = Pick Race + Class (+ Kit)
3e= Pick Race + Class + Feats + Prestige Class
4e = Pick Race + Class + Feats + Paragon Class + Epic Class
5e = Pick Race + Class + Background + Specialty
OR Pick Race + Class + Custom Background + Custom Specialty
I don't need 5e's chargen complexity, but I see its value as a half-measure trying to please everyone. The build guys can either crunch the value of combos or just min/max via the custom approach and then bitch and moan at the table when other players just choose options they like.
Ha! But I see your point it does seem like a decent middle ground.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650845So the edition progression of chargen is...
0e/BX = Pick Race or Class
1e = Pick Race + Class
2e = Pick Race + Class (+ Kit)
3e= Pick Race + Class + Feats + Prestige Class
4e = Pick Race + Class + Feats + Paragon Class + Epic Class
5e = Pick Race + Class + Background + Specialty
OR Pick Race + Class + Custom Background + Custom Specialty
I don't need 5e's chargen complexity, but I see its value as a half-measure trying to please everyone. The build guys can either crunch the value of combos or just min/max via the custom approach and then bitch and moan at the table when other players just choose options they like.
OR:
5e: pick race + class and that's it. Use basic ability checks instead of skills, and ignore feats for an attribute bonus instead.
Quote from: Spinachcat;650845So the edition progression of chargen is...
0e/BX = Pick Race or Class
1e = Pick Race + Class
2e = Pick Race + Class (+ Kit)
3e= Pick Race + Class + Feats + Prestige Class
4e = Pick Race + Class + Feats + Paragon Class + Epic Class
5e = Pick Race + Class + Background + Specialty
OR Pick Race + Class + Custom Background + Custom Specialty
I don't need 5e's chargen complexity, but I see its value as a half-measure trying to please everyone. The build guys can either crunch the value of combos or just min/max via the custom approach and then bitch and moan at the table when other players just choose options they like.
Keep in mind that the Specialty choice in 5E means you choose from about 10 options and then never have to pick a feat again, while the Feats choice in 3E and 4E means you choose from dozens of feats at start, and then choose from dozens again every couple levels (or even every level).
To ask a relevant question to Sacrosanct: Have you played with divergent edition chargen styles at the same table already? Have you played 1e style simplicity next to full 3e chargen and ran the characters together? Switching from skills to ability checks, et al, have players felt little difference?
Quote from: Opaopajr;650909To ask a relevant question to Sacrosanct: Have you played with divergent edition chargen styles at the same table already? Have you played 1e style simplicity next to full 3e chargen and ran the characters together? Switching from skills to ability checks, et al, have players felt little difference?
My Wed night group is sort of like this. One fella is playing a pretty vanilla dwarven fighter that is more like the basic rules. I am playing a halfling fighter skulker, so more the standard version. But I'm going with the prepackaged skulker specialty and am not picking and choosing my feats. One of the other players is playing a magic user. I don't know all of the details of his character, but I'm pretty sure he's done a lot more customization on his own in regards to what feats and skills he has (i.e., his own custom background and specialty). We haven't mixed skills to ability checks; every character has skills. However, it should be noted that when attempting something you're not skilled in, it's pretty much just an ability check. The only difference is that if you are skilled, you get a d6 skill die result to add to that. So it's really easy to just ignore skills altogether if you want. Just ignore the skill die and it's same-same as a basic ability check.
Up to this point, we haven't noticed any issues that wouldn't come up in any other version anyway. I certainly don't feel underpowered compared to the guy who fully customized his magic user.
Quote from: Opaopajr;650909To ask a relevant question to Sacrosanct: Have you played with divergent edition chargen styles at the same table already? Have you played 1e style simplicity next to full 3e chargen and ran the characters together? Switching from skills to ability checks, et al, have players felt little difference?
Kind of related, I entered a 3.x/PF game with a vanilla Thief modelled on how I would've played in pre-3E. I was outclassed and out gunned mainly because I was not familiar with or bothered about system mastery and pushing the character class choices to their maximum.
The disparity in approaches meant that the fun/not fun equation was not in my favour. Though to be fair, the GMs expectations where to have a maxed out group. Therefore my play style was not convergent with the game as it progressed.
Something to consider: Be all on the same page.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;648846I 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.
(1.) 3.x (3.0/3/5/Pathfinder/etc.) is still the most popular type of rpg out there today (even now), hence your statement makes no sense.
(2.) 3.x feats do not work in only one way, hence your statement leads to even more confusion.
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 3d6 attribute values
do have a game effect. In AD&D, your ability scores determined your ability to access various character classes, and they also determined what level spell you could cast, how many languages you knew, and more. There are even certain monsters that drain ability scores, so yes....it's relevant.
In 3.x, you'll often need an odd-numbered attribute score to qualify for a feat. Furthermore, you can suffer ability damage and ability drain from monsters and poison and whatnot, so having a 13 Constitution is definitely better than having a 12 Constitution.
Not only that, but your mental ability scores determine what level spells you can cast. That means that it's better for the Wizard to have a 17 Intelligence, rather than a 16 Intelligence....even though they provide the same number of skill bonuses and skill points.
Ability scores are a resource, just like hit points...though people often forget it. :pundit:
Of course, most of these things are not currently included in 5e. There is no ability damage, no requirement to cast spells and of course no requirement for taking a class.
Of course, they could rearrange other benefits to the odd levels. Gain languages, bonus AC and attunement slots at odd levels. Make extra HP like carrying capacity, so the whole stat contributes. And do something with wisdom...
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;650922(1.) 3.x (3.0/3/5/Pathfinder/etc.) is still the most popular type of rpg out there today (even now), hence your statement makes no sense.
How so? Granted, 'hate' was a bit of a strong word, but it makes perfect sense that people who don't want to play 3.e/PF
don't like, and the ones who do, do. How popular it is doesn't change the fact that people that don't play it and play something else do so for a reason. Most likely because they don't like it as much as what they are playing instead. The Lakers are one of the most popular NBA teams, but I can tell you that most people who are not fans of the Lakers range from dislike to outright loathing of them.
Quote(2.) 3.x feats do not work in only one way, hence your statement leads to even more confusion.
If my statement said that feats only work one way, then maybe you'd have a point. But I didn't, and you don't. I said they don't work like in 3e, which is true.
I'm not generally a huge fan of Feats myself, but the overall list seems manageable currently. Further, you can drop the optional ones, and simply use the chain provided by specialities. In any case, characters won't have an inordinate amount of them, if they follow the last packet. What was it, 3 Feats by level 10 or something, plus 3 from a speciality? (trying to recall). And, of course, you can play completely without them if you want.