Community

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:41AM, Orzel wrote:

Mechanical Feat Tax: A feat needed to fix glaring mathematical flaws in the main system. Conceptual Feat Tax: A feat required to play a very common concept within the game system. A mechanical feat tax for a very common concept. A Really Really Good Feat: A feat that is so good mechanically that it is very difficult to pass up a some point in the game. That's my definitions.

Those seem sensible.

I admit I overdid it by calling Charge a feat tax, but I wanted to raise a concern about the potential issues with the proposed approach.

I mean, feats (and specialities) were supposed to be entirely optional initially, on a player by player choice, even within the same group. Now they provide gameplay and class defining options. Hence my perplexity.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:18AM, Uskglass wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:41AM, Orzel wrote:

Mechanical Feat Tax: A feat needed to fix glaring mathematical flaws in the main system. Conceptual Feat Tax: A feat required to play a very common concept within the game system. A mechanical feat tax for a very common concept. A Really Really Good Feat: A feat that is so good mechanically that it is very difficult to pass up a some point in the game. That's my definitions.

Those seem sensible.

I admit I overdid it by calling Charge a feat tax, but I wanted to raise a concern about the potential issues with the proposed approach.

I mean, feats (and specialities) were supposed to be entirely optional initially, on a player by player choice, even within the same group. Now they provide gameplay and class defining options. Hence my perplexity.

you can still play without feats and say, "I am charging this guy", (just sticking with the charge motif because it actually is a good example of where there is a feat but you could say your doing it without having the feat) all that means is you move your speed and attack in fact that provides clearer gameplay for the basic game.  

Basically the question was more related to things such as parry.  You don't need to be a fighter to say, "I parry the attack", even if it was a hit a rogue could still say this and say he parried the blow but doing so is taxing and drains him of however much damage he just took that didn't drop him to below 50% HP (the 50% thing is even negotiable since the only attack that truly hits home is the one that drops you below 0 hit points).  You don't need the parry ability of the fighter to say you parried an attack the fighter just gets a bonus when he does it.

Another example would be persuading someone to do something.  You don't need the persuasion skill in order to do it you can do it with just straight skill modifiers.  The skill training just offers a bonus while doing it.  Notice how nothing in the skill list has declared trained only usages.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:15AM, dmgorgon wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:50AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

you can still play without feats and say, "I am charging this guy", (just sticking with the charge motif because it actually is a good example of where there is a feat but you could say your doing it without having the feat) all that means is you move your speed and attack in fact that provides clearer gameplay for the basic game.  

I would worry that the player might expect his momentum to mean something even in a basic game.   I guess it really all depends on how frequently you award Advantage.    If you give it out for simple things like having higher ground, but don't award it for charging then players might not understand.  

 

See us older players might think that...but a new player?  This is one of those areas where you gotta ask the question: do we follow tradition or do we drop the tradition because moving forward and attacking can always be described as a charge: To attack violently, or To rush forward in or as if in a violent attack? I mean giving a static bonus to charging doesn't even seem all that correct as situationally charging can be a terrible idea.