|
Don't forget, we still have the option of retraining feats. What we would likely see is front-loading those ability feats to hit 20 in your primary stat, and slowly shed them as you hit the +attribute levels. Assuming a 17 in your primary (maximum using current point buy), you spend your 1st and 3rd level feats on stats, take the stat boost at 4th, then shed the feats at 8th and 12th. If the early feats are less powerful as described, you probably didn't even have to make a real tradeoff doing this. It's a feat tax on low level characters that you can eventually pay off. Unfortunately, a lot of games end before they get that far.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
This has to be the worst form of system mastery I've ever seen: picking anything cool (and even a boring Toughness feat is cool compared to that) is being actively punished by the game. DTAS, D&DNext  and all that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Two things on that though: One - until you reach 20 in your primary, you don't retrain them. Who knows how long that might take for you. Two depends on something I don't know about the playtest - there's a limit on how high the putative feats can take your score, but is there on the level bumps? You may want to keep them because then the level bumps push you even higher...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Two things on that though: One - until you reach 20 in your primary, you don't retrain them. Who knows how long that might take for you. Two depends on something I don't know about the playtest - there's a limit on how high the putative feats can take your score, but is there on the level bumps? You may want to keep them because then the level bumps push you even higher... Unless of course you have a magic item!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:This is amazing. I really like this part: Wait am I getting this right? You can burn feats (a finite resource) to increase ability scores (which are rolled randomly). So if you roll low you're double hosed by having bad scores and less feats to toss around? Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Hah, didn't even catch that little interaction. Now you get to spend weeks of real time catching up to your friends' level 1 character sheets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Two things on that though: One - until you reach 20 in your primary, you don't retrain them. Who knows how long that might take for you. Two depends on something I don't know about the playtest - there's a limit on how high the putative feats can take your score, but is there on the level bumps? You may want to keep them because then the level bumps push you even higher... Assuming you can get a base score of 15 before factoring in your racial/class bonus (which is coincidentally the highest legal amount using current point buy rules), you only need to spend two feats before you hit 20 at level 4 and they're freed at 12. If you use a suboptimal race/class combination for your intended primary stat, it'll probably take 3 feats, hitting 20 at level 6/8 and freeing those feats at 16/20. If you have a secondary stat that you're trying to keep high, it does get more complicated. Base attributes are hard capped at 20. It's a single sentence buried inside paragraphs, so it's easy to miss, but that rule is there. electrigger posted:Wait am I getting this right? You can burn feats (a finite resource) to increase ability scores (which are rolled randomly). So if you roll low you're double hosed by having bad scores and less feats to toss around? Holy poo poo. Previously, if you rolled low, you were screwed no matter what. At least now you have a chance of closing that gap, since that hard stat cap means they'll be forced into branching out. Eventually you'll be a one trick pony and they'll have two or three, but at least you can contribute? It's a band-aid for a gaping chest wound, but theoretically it's better than the nothing you had before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
isndl posted:It's a band-aid for a gaping chest wound, but theoretically it's better than the nothing you had before. I've maintained for years that the biggest problem with both 3e and 4e were the glut of feats (well, tied with multiclassing in 3e), leading to a nest of trap options and multiple broken combinations. And what do they do with 5e? Make it worse. The hell. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Random stats is doable for a simple game of dungeon looting and logistics like OD&D where the stats have little direct impact on gameplay, but it makes no sense at all in what is essentially a point-buy game with standardized costs in the form of levels and feats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Random stats is doable for a simple game of dungeon looting and logistics like OD&D where the stats have little direct impact on gameplay, but it makes no sense at all in what is essentially a point-buy game with standardized costs in the form of levels and feats. Random stats work fine....if your game is built to work with them. As opposed to punch you in the dick for not generating the numbers which keep you on par with what you should be. Seems like a mechanism where theres a big fat part of it thats missing and nobody has mentioned it or its been yanked out. I mean that cant be the full extent of it. Halloween Jack posted:D&D Next: Its now 3e with brain damage. kingcom fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
I've never understood the fascination some people seem to have with random stats. When I first looked at older D&D books, and saw how there was a nice, large area in the middle where there wasn't much effect, and got the vibe of "these things die easy anyway," it seemed alright. Fun, even. I don't get why people have continued to latch onto it in and past 3rd edition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Random stats aren't even that bad so long as variation is a relatively small part of the total number. Rogue Trader's 2d10+25 is a nice example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
zachol posted:I've never understood the fascination some people seem to have with random stats. As was said, its not the concept of rolling random stats that is inherently flawed, its just the way D&D goes about doing it. I started a pathfinder game recently where I have a Dexterity of 7. I love old school gameplay  kingcom fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Signal posted:Random stats aren't even that bad so long as variation is a relatively small part of the total number. Rogue Trader's 2d10+25 is a nice example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
kingcom posted:As was said, its not the concept of rolling random stats that is inherently flawed, its just the way D&D goes about doing it. I started a pathfinder game recently where I have a Dexterity of 7. I love old school gameplay Why are you rolling stats in a 3.x system? That's terrible, 3.x isn't made for rolling stats. Anyway, this feat thing...I dunno, part of me likes feats due to the customization they can give if done well (they haven't been done well yet, 4e was better then 3.pathfinder but still had way to many unbalanced feats in both directions) but MAN, does it get loving obnoxious to remember all the feat chains and all the build stuff and everything after even only a few splatbooks enter the fray. System mastery to the MAX is not a thing I've ever been a huge fan of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
The thing with feats is that I always hear "they'd be great if they were done right!" but I've literally not once heard of any system, ever, that has had feats or something similar, and they weren't loving awful. Every single rendition of feats or similar have had problems with being clunky, needless, bloated, nitpicky, terribly balanced, and/or time consuming, and the whole thing leads into being a massive combo of player traps and intense slowdown. Part of the problem is that feats are doing way too loving much. Are they a means of branching out? Are they a means of specialization? Are they math fixes? Are they new abilities? Are they slight upgrades to old abilities? Do they give you permission to use abilities you should already be able to do? Are they prerequisites for other feats? Pick loving two at most. Not goddamn all of them! But that would require clear design goals, and then you'd just be a video game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
goldjas posted:Why are you rolling stats in a 3.x system? That's terrible, 3.x isn't made for rolling stats. I honestly see more 3.x games rolling stats than point buy (only ever saw point by on the internet or for short-term games). I've never played pathfinder before and I decided to give it a shot. Seems like fun, but i ended up just playing a cleric so the 7 isnt...too bad. ProfessorCirno posted:The thing with feats is that I always hear "they'd be great if they were done right!" but I've literally not once heard of any system, ever, that has had feats or something similar, and they weren't loving awful. Every single rendition of feats or similar have had problems with being clunky, needless, bloated, nitpicky, terribly balanced, and/or time consuming, and the whole thing leads into being a massive combo of player traps and intense slowdown. Try the 40K RPG systems (Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader etc), they do feats (called talents) very well but then again the class system is just a method of controlling your access to all the skills and talents in the game. So I pick an Assassin and Rank 1 gives me lots of skills and talents to let me do things with regards to killing people and being sneaky and getting information out of people. Rank 2 does more of that etc. I pick a cleric and my killing related abilities are there but I cant buy them until Rank 3 for example. Everyone is drawing from the same set of skills and talents but your getting access to them at different points in your career. kingcom fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Post is not Quote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
electrigger posted:Wait am I getting this right? You can burn feats (a finite resource) to increase ability scores (which are rolled randomly). So if you roll low you're double hosed by having bad scores and less feats to toss around? Holy poo poo. The irony of this is that the ability score bonuses is probably supposed to be a soft pitch at the old school players because "Now you don't have to take feats at all." Except all the old school players that are posting on the Wizards board hate it since it clearly ruins the experience of rolling up scores. Which is an important old school thing to do (TM). The thing I'm excited about from this legends and lore is that the power of feats is going to become truly nuts. To match up to an attribute point boost feats will just have to become hilarious because each attribute does skill checks, saves, accuracy, and usually one other thing as well. "+1 AC" just doesn't cut it at that level. I cannot wait to see the ridiculous results of this decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thing I'm excited about from this legends and lore is that the power of feats is going to become truly nuts. To match up to an attribute point boost feats will just have to become hilarious because each attribute does skill checks, saves, accuracy, and usually one other thing as well. "+1 AC" just doesn't cut it at that level. I cannot wait to see the ridiculous results of this decision. "What if...what if we made a feat that gave someone a +1 bonus to two skills?" "Brilliant!" My prediction is that feats are going to be just as dumb and bullshit as they were in the last two editions, that Mearls and his design team have learned absolutely nothing from 3E or 4E in this regard and that we're going to see the same set of mistakes wrapped up in a different color of paper. Assuming that this decision means that the design team is going to have to rework feats to compensate assumes that the design team in question is actually interested in doing that in the first place. This is design by feel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
I feel like this is my fault, since in every survey for a playtest packet with feats I've said something like "feats are boring, if you have to have feats at all, stop it with the +1 to this and that and make them cool stuff you can do, look at the Tain Bo Cuailnge, Edda, or Iliad for some ideas for cool heroic feats". What they seem to have read was "Put in heaps more feats, and make sure that if anyone wants to do anything vaguely cool, it's a feat they have to take". I meant it to mean stuff like "throw 7 spears at once", and "throw a spear that always returns to your hand" and "swing your sword at 9 dudes and kill them all in one shot except for the middle one" and "use a bow so powerful that nobody but you can string it" and "jump over a castle wall carrying 7 times your weight in gold". I guess "+1 strength" is what I'm getting. But I don't have to like it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thing I'm excited about from this legends and lore is that the power of feats is going to become truly nuts. To match up to an attribute point boost feats will just have to become hilarious because each attribute does skill checks, saves, accuracy, and usually one other thing as well. "+1 AC" just doesn't cut it at that level. I cannot wait to see the ridiculous results of this decision. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html ( Remember, Mearl's awesome example of the sublime power of feats was "My paladin used a quarterstaff!" )
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
I still maintain the powers system and selectable class features in 4e accomplished 98% of what a feat system "should" accomplish with none of the issues. It's just there's a few things it couldn't quite handle (cross-class sorts of talents for example, though that got less important as more classes were added over time) and 4e had a dumbass feat system atop it too...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:( Remember, Mearl's awesome example of the sublime power of feats was "My paladin used a quarterstaff!" ) 1e and 2e paladins can take "Quarterstaff" as a weapon proficiency if they want. 3.5 Paladins are proficient with "all simple and martial weapons", so they can use a quarterstaff if they want. 4e paladins are proficient with "simple melee, military melee, simple ranged", so they can use a quarterstaff if they want. Next paladins are proficient with "all simple and martial weapons, so they can use a quarterstaff if they want. No paladin has ever needed a feat to use a quarterstaff. What the gently caress? Asimo posted:I still maintain the powers system and selectable class features in 4e accomplished 98% of what a feat system "should" accomplish with none of the issues. It's just there's a few things it couldn't quite handle (cross-class sorts of talents for example, though that got less important as more classes were added over time) and 4e had a dumbass feat system atop it too... I agree with this. There's no reason that there couldn't be that system, minus feats, with an extra list of Utility type powers that any class could choose from. Perhaps a lot of class stuff could also appear in the "any class" list, but a couple of levels higher. Add a rider that you can't have more than half your abilities be from a different class and/or you can't have abilities from more than 2 classes. Bam, multiclassing. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing with feats is that I always hear "they'd be great if they were done right!" but I've literally not once heard of any system, ever, that has had feats or something similar, and they weren't loving awful. Every single rendition of feats or similar have had problems with being clunky, needless, bloated, nitpicky, terribly balanced, and/or time consuming, and the whole thing leads into being a massive combo of player traps and intense slowdown. The 40k RPGs and Iron Kingdoms did decent Feat-like mechanics. Just out of curiosity, but would having feats scale with the player's level help alleviate some of the problems? I mean, instead of having 5 feats that offer +1 each to the attack and/or damage, roll them into one feat that gives a cumulative +1 attack and damage per X levels. Then do something similar with the various feats (Cleave would become Great Cleave at X level, for example) Wait, no, that's stupid and may require more book keeping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
I don't see why they need to have feats and skills. Why are the Tumbling skill and the Tumbling Movement feat two separate things? Why is Hide In Shadows a feat and Sneak a skill? It's not even as if feats are combat-specific, because the Herbalism feat isn't going to be much use in a battle unless it helps you grind up pepper and throw it in someone's eyes. (And why is it Herbalism (feat) and not It's like one guy came up with an interesting idea (expertise dice), but rather than rewrite feats to take advantage of it they just bolted it on top, so now the game has "Do something you're good at" and "Do something cool" as entirely separate mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
I want to be terribly cynical and say "because feat/skill/class bloat sells splatbooks", but deep down we all know that this is the game they earnestly want to make, and I am not sure if that's even more cynical or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I want to be terribly cynical and say "because feat/skill/class bloat sells splatbooks", but deep down we all know that this is the game they earnestly want to make, and I am not sure if that's even more cynical or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 11:01
|
|
|
Payndz posted:As long as Wizards' business model for D&D is "sell glossy hardback books for lots of money", I guess there's no hope of ever seeing a truly streamlined system, whatever the designers might be dreaming of making. ...except if they actually followed through on their original stated design goal of "streamlined basic core, various modular addons", they would be able to sell even more books. I would play the gently caress out of a game that was pretty much Basic D&D with modern design, and I'd probably buy a large number of the optional extras so I could mix and match them until I had the game I wanted. Every sperglord gamer would buy all the books regardless of what was in them just like they always do, only now there'd be 15 books at release instead of 3. "Modular", if you managed to pull it off and had a big brand backing you up, would be the TTRPG scene's biggest ever moneyspinner. Just think of the monster manuals! Same monsters re-used 5 times, just the numbers re "balanced" into each of: Old School D&D, Gritty Verisimitudinous Real Roleplaying, Epic Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying, World Of Warcraft with the serial numbers filed off, Tactical Combat Game, You only need to do any actual balancing for the last two, for the rest just make up numbers that seem (in order) about right, a bit high, and a bit low, and claim that just how the fictional world is, deal with it. You could even use the same art for (1 and 2) and (3, 4 and 5). poo poo, for Tactical Combat Game you don't even need art, just the symbols for monster role printed on little cardboard counters! Edit: And then you sell the little cardboard counters! Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
A truly modular D&D would be a hell of a neat trick. I don't know if I'd like it more than I like my edition of choice, but I would definitely be interested in seeing someone take a stab at it. Unfortunately that ship seems to have sailed, as the Next definition of "modular" now seems to be "well if you don't like feats then don't use them" and similar. "Modular" is not the same thing as "modifiable."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
zachol posted:I've never understood the fascination some people seem to have with random stats. With point-buy ability scores every point a Fighter puts into Int is a point consciously not spent putting into actually being good at Fighter. So you can be int 10 and effective or smart and sub-par. An array doesn't work either, because there will always be a "best" arrangement and it's not going to involve putting your third highest ability score into Int. Enter Random Roll! With Random Roll you are given discrete numbers, like an array, but they're random, so they could be anything! So it's quite possible to roll such that you put all your highest rolls into important ability scores and still have a 14 left over for int! Problem solved! Smart Fighters might now exist! So will 18/17/17/8/6/5 fighters but let's not talk about that. In other words, it's a band-aid solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place that causes more problems than it solves. : D&D :
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Random stats worked in Basic or OD&D where stat gains weren't uniform and, for the most part, weren't really big. Like in OD&D if I remember correctly strength gives something like +1 to attack at 16, then +2 at 18. So in OD&D/Basic stats were a means to identify your character and set them apart. Rigby the wizard is physically weak with a puny 8 in strength and 5 in dexterity, while Bigby the wizard is a mass of muscle magic at 14 in both. Random stats in such a situation are good because they give you a first step to your character when you reach level 5 and actually name them. Or to put it another way, some people like to start off with a core concept to create, and others like to start off blank and essentially create the character as they go. Then AD&D happened, and what do you know, as stats became more important, random rolls became shittier. And you saw more and more variants of rolling to help players get better and better rolls, to the point where there was no real point to it. I have seen one game that did randomly rolled characters well, and that's REIGN, because REIGN was to some degree built under the assumption that rolls should (broadly) be equal, and the math should make sense, following bad times at White Wolf. The random chargen for REIGN not only makes characters that are almost always equal to each other stat wise while being very diverse, it even gives you backstory chunks to figure out and put together to make your character. It's wonderful. To my recollection, the only thing in chargen that can get a much bigger number then it should is Expert: Cobbler. Of course, this system works because, as was mentioned, Greg Stolze did a lot of math for it, and D&D Next is nothing if not dedicated to the idea that you can't "design" games, much less try to figure out "math" for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Payndz posted:As long as Wizards' business model for D&D is "sell glossy hardback books for lots of money", I guess there's no hope of ever seeing a truly streamlined system, whatever the designers might be dreaming of making. Even without modules, I think it could be done. No one bought 4e books because they were excited about feats, they bought them because they had classes, paragon paths, powers, weapons, and other things that had a more immediate effect on their character. Sure, people would use feats, but I don't think many people bought books strictly or even in part of them. Unless by "truly streamlined" you mean something really unobtainable, but if "4e without feats" would fit your idea I think it could be done. People like art, little bits of lore/style (or lots in the case of campaign books), class options, and stronger active abilities, and you can definitely make a ton of book sjust out of those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Random stats worked in Basic or OD&D where stat gains weren't uniform and, for the most part, weren't really big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Feats have almost never been the draw for buying a book - they've been the easy, lovely filler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Here is "a good" of Random Stats. This makes me think it wouldn't be so bad to have a system where your class gives you an automatic 18 or whatever in your core function (so Fighters get 18 Str, Wizards get 18 Int) and then you randomly roll everything else. It means you get a bit of randomness in your character to hang character quirks off of, but it shouldn't drastically raise or lower your effectiveness. Then again, Next ensures with its stat-based defenses that every low stat is a weakness that could be fatal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Flavivirus posted:This makes me think it wouldn't be so bad to have a system where your class gives you an automatic 18 or whatever in your core function (so Fighters get 18 Str, Wizards get 18 Int) and then you randomly roll everything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Then AD&D happened, and what do you know, as stats became more important, random rolls became shittier. And you saw more and more variants of rolling to help players get better and better rolls, to the point where there was no real point to it. I know I harp on this a bit, but for the sake of accuracy, there was never a "roll 3d6 in order" method in 1st edition AD&D. The least "nice" version was "roll 4d6(drop lowest die) 6 times and arrange to taste". There were various other ways of doing it accompanied by an essay from Gary Himself about how it sucks when you don't get the scores you want and you should probably roll a couple of sets until you get one you really like. Most grognards and OSR people somehow manage to miss that bit of the book. Edit: I agree with you, in case it wasn't clear, and I especially agree that stat rolling became pointless. I do think it's important to remember that the various stat rolling methods weren't houserules to AD&D, they were actually in the core books, and were put there with a couple of paragraphs saying how important it is to let players start with scores they want. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Feats have almost never been the draw for buying a book - they've been the easy, lovely filler. And that's why they are so attractive from the publisher's point of view. Flavivirus posted:This makes me think it wouldn't be so bad to have a system where your class gives you an automatic 18 or whatever in your core function (so Fighters get 18 Str, Wizards get 18 Int) and then you randomly roll everything else. Or have everything be randomly rolled, but for class specific actions you ignore your stats and add a fixed number (according to your level). That way you can still have the "weak but smart fighter" who is just as good at fighty stuff as Buff McSwolesson, but not able to lift the boulder that's blocking the way. Rexides fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Rexides posted:And that's why they are so attractive from the publisher's point of view. And this is why there will always be feat bloat. People who argue "well maybe they'll get feats right this time," no they won't. The previews shown thus far show that's not true, and as sure as anything as soon as Next drops they'll start churning out more feats in Dragon and in supplements because they're cheap, lovely filler crunch that's easy to whip off because everybody just eyeballs'em and calls it good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 15:13
|
|