If we are headed down a thematic route for feats both the separate types and the one feat gives all benefits aproach could fit. Maybe as said below feats need to move away from single mechanic bonuses and encompass a broader effect with multiple bonuses to all aspects of the game. This may mean fewer feats but there could be variations on a feat to give slightly different bonuses and add more flavour to the characters.
I definately like separating the combat bonuses from the other types of bonuses. Having feats focus on combat, while things like backgrounds and "traits" can handle other types of benefits sounds like it will allow players the ability to choose things that they would like their character to have without worrying about lagging behind in combat.
One thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never...
View full commentOne thing about #6 that I find strange is the notion of "If the fighter can get close, the wizard's dead." That seems to be the angry old-school consensus, along with the related "If the wizard can keep the fighter at a distance, the fighter is dead." Whatever happened to "I ready my bow and shoot him in his eye"? Why should a fighter's ranged attacks be less deadly than his up close ones, if he is truly versatile (#4 above). I admit, I do love the idea of balance across classes so I never feel like my class was a bad choice unless I'm the one playing it badly. I don't want to be the wizard's caddie at high level anymore than I want to be his mommy at low level. I want him by my side, being awesome while I do the same. Our jobs aren't exactly the same, but I want to feel cool while I do mine and clap and yell encouragement as he does his. I very much loved the roles of different classes, and hoped that they would expand on that idea across classes. I wanted a wizard defender who wasn't a swordmage but instead used magic to up his defenses, who tanked the demon prince while wearing a dress and flip-flops, armed with a stick and a headful of hoodoo. One of the failings of 4th ed is they have never hammered out the martial idea enough to come up with a really good, solid martial controller. They took the idea of martial meaning "no magic at all" too far and painted themselves into a corner.
I actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a...
View full commentI actually totally agree a high level fighter should be able to hit a wizard with a bow attack, its just that on average arrows do less damage than heavy weapons since you don't get your str bonus unless you have a special bow, and this would mean it takes 3 or 4 rounds of arrows (whatever) to take down the wizard outright, giving the wizard hope of escape (teleport). I posted the earlier comment purely in response to #6 above suggesting that a high level fighter should be close to immune to a full assault of a high level wizard. I actually don't think of PC vs PC contests much when I play. I love playing wizards and I love playing barbarians, pretty much the two extremes role wise. I worry less about balance and more about fun.
I'm a big believer in "Getting to Yes." Present the options, all the options, to the players, and see what they latch onto. Then build a game around what they are playing. If they want to play a Tiefling, don't screw them over for wanting to play the Tiefling. Build a story that will accommodate that choice. If the player WANTS to have risks involved with the racial choice (because those risks could be a roleplaying MINE, like having to wear robes to disguise a devilish appearance), that's...
View full commentI'm a big believer in "Getting to Yes." Present the options, all the options, to the players, and see what they latch onto. Then build a game around what they are playing. If they want to play a Tiefling, don't screw them over for wanting to play the Tiefling. Build a story that will accommodate that choice. If the player WANTS to have risks involved with the racial choice (because those risks could be a roleplaying MINE, like having to wear robes to disguise a devilish appearance), that's in the DM's power to grant, but the DM shouldn't screw someone over because their idea of fun is different than the DM's. Of course, if the player becomes a problem to the group, that's an issue, but the most important role of the DM is making sure everyone can have their fun. And part of that means providing all the racial choices, "ICONIC D&D" or not.
My campaign is quasi-historical, so I'm constantly saying no to races I haven't already distorted history to accommodate. I don't care one way or another about the frequency designations, because it should vary greatly from setting to setting.