|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:08AM
#1
|
|
|
Right now feats hold an odd design space. They are meant to provide options to expand upon your character but they cover both combat and non combat abilities. This has been shown to be a poor design for the last 2.5 editions. Combat character creation and non combat character creation resources should not be forced to compete with eachother.
As such I propose that feats be split up into two categories: Combat Feats and non-combat feats. A PC will gain a combat feat at levels 1, 3, 9, and 15. A PC will gain a non-combat feat at levels 1, 6, 12, and 18. By level 20 PCs will have 4 combat and 4 non-combat feats.
Giving all PCs more non-combat options will help improve gameplay overall as classes who currently have significantly fewer non-combat capabilities will gain a significant non-combat boost.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:09AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
What if all someone wants is one category or the other?
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:13AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
What if all someone wants is one category or the other?
Wouldn't that really depend on the game? What if someone doesn't want feats at all? I'll be interested to see how someone without feats performs next to someone who does have them.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:17AM
#4
|
|
|
What if all someone wants is one category or the other?
That is kind of the point of the split, to prevent people from taking all combat or all non-combat feats. Throughout 3e and 4e the majority of players chose "combat" feats instead of "RP" feats. Well, now players can have both.
If the player really wants nothing in regards to out of combat resources they can easily take the feats skill focus and skill mastery for underwater basket weaving.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:34AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
That is kind of the point of the split, to prevent people from taking all combat or all non-combat feats. Throughout 3e and 4e the majority of players chose "combat" feats instead of "RP" feats.
So?
Well, now players can have both.
Now players are mandated to take both.
Here's how to do it:
Recycle Talents from SWSE.
It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 9:38AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I don't see how it'd be such a tragedy to ask players to focus on more than one thing, and one of the problems with feats is how broad in scope they are. Traits are good too. My issue with this specific idea is it means I have to look through more than one list. It also lengthens the time between things by alternating selection, which may not be that bad but it means someone who's seriously focused on non combat has to wait twice as long for their next upgrade. I think probably the more common complaint would be having to wait for their next combat feat.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 10:34AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Actually this is brilliant, you wanna know why you have so many people taking all combat options and the social/exploration feats get labled as garbage? BEcause if you have to choose between +2 to diplomacy and +3 to damage, guess whose gonna win.
Give everyone social abilities without forcing them to trade their combat powers and you'll be likely to see non-combat actions even from the most hardcore min-maxers since they now have the ability to impact a non-combat encounter.
The problem with offering combat and non-combat options out of the same resourse pool is two fold: 1.) It's exceedingly difficult to balance between them because of how different the systems they run on are. 2.) COmbat is often consisdered the more reliabel and higher stakes, so focusing on combat abilities is generally smarter.
By running them off different resource pools you allow for game customization (feats, no feats, non-com feats only, com-feats only), it gives the min-maxxers the ability to participate in non-combat encounters without getting into a huge row with the DM, it keeps the actors from gimping themselves and hamstringing the party, and it's balanced.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 10:43AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 28, 2009
|
Here's how to do it:
Recycle Traits from SWSE.
It's that simple.
How did traits work in SWSE ? I've never had a chance to try it out . I'd love to hear how it was done and how it could make non-combat better for DDN
Thank you,
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 10:43AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
It is a good idea that people have been suggesting for years. I know several people (including myself) suggested it when 4e was in the works. If the designers are worried about naming, change one from feats to abilities, traits, or whatever. It doesn't really complicate the game as it doesn't add more feats, just splits up the list.
The only real issue is people trawling through the non-combat list to find feats they can use in combat anyway. Such as +2 to bluff so they can feint better in combat. This is really a minor issue though as long as the designers keep that possibility in mind when designing feats.
I would also suggest that there be one feat that lets you take one option from the other side, but it should only be available once per character. That would give a bit of flexibility to people who wanted to focus on combat or non-combat without letting them go overboard. That depends a bit on the number of feats available though, with Next's very limited number of feats, that might be focusing too much onto one side or the other.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 01, 2013 - 10:43AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
I've been saying to do this since 3E hit the shelves in 2000...technically before that, as 2E's non-weapon proficiencies had several combat-related ones mixed in with the OOC ones (why not take blind-fighting as opposed to fire-building?).
The 2 core goals of DDN:
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
- Mike Mearls
|
|
|
