So wait... Feats OR attribute increase?

[Willie the Duck]

Oh good, another thread devolving into a spellcaster-v.-martial headbutting contest. I'm sure this time we will finally resolve this issue once and for all.

[Ninja-Radish]

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think you understand that monster HP scales with player damage. A fighter at level 20 doesn't get four times as much attack power as a level 1 fighter. You'd think he does, since he has four attacks. But those four attacks take off the same percentage of an appropriate CR enemy's health that one attack used to.

Conditions, meanwhile, are equally useful at every level. If you can paralyze an enemy, that's just as good at level 20 as at level 5. A level 20 monk can paralyze more targets per rest than a level 5 monk, and can also flurry more often for more damage. This is why monk scaling is better than fighter scaling. They actually get better at what they do, rather than staying the same.

To your lever analogy, rogues and fighters don't get longer levers. Their levers stay the same length relative monsters. So do most wizard levers. But wizards get more levers. And some of those levers inflict conditions on multiple targets, or a single target for multiple rounds. As I said, those conditions are equally useful at every level. Inflicting a condition on multiple targets is better than inflicting it on just one. And that's the kind of capability that wizards get.

In conclusion, fighters scale exactly with the game, but wizards get new capabilities. That means that if a wizard is balanced at level 5, wizards are by definition overpowered at later levels. I'm just making observations about game mechanics, here.

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?

[Easy_Lee]

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?

Table dependent, but that would just mean that AoE is even stronger. Can't speak for your experiences, but in mine casters shine when they can hit a large number of creatures with one spell.

Regardless, this doesn't affect my point in any way. Casters gain more and stronger abilities than martials the higher they go. And this is another concern about feats. A martial can specialize with feats to a greater degree than most casters, since Metamagic is no longer accessible via feats. Fewer feats means less martial specialization.

[Tanarii]

Have you considered that most CR appropriate encounters are most likely to be several lower CR creatures than one big solo monster?

That's the way all the really fun and exciting encounters I've played run, so I heavily based my own DM style when creating original content. IMO even a Deadly 'Boss' encounter should have at least 3 monsters in it. Medium and Hard encounters should be in the 5-6 range, by default.

I prefer to steal from or convert older module content. But even then, I'll avoid solo monsters whenever I can. Unless they have something tactically interesting to do, and/or are very dangerous.

Spoiler: Yawning Portal spoiler

Show

Like Nightscale in Forge of Fury (3e version). She's already powerful enough as is, but when you add in a her tactical advantage, she's crazy powerful. Not sure what she's like in the YP version, but spoilered this anyway because this encounter is in the book.

[Zalabim]

Table dependent, but that would just mean that AoE is even stronger. Can't speak for your experiences, but in mine casters shine when they can hit a large number of creatures with one spell.

Regardless, this doesn't affect my point in any way. Casters gain more and stronger abilities than martials the higher they go. And this is another concern about feats. A martial can specialize with feats to a greater degree than most casters, since Metamagic is no longer accessible via feats. Fewer feats means less martial specialization.

What if the enemies aren't all humanoids with neither ranged attacks nor magical support that all pile in from the tightest formation possible? What if the enemies are varied and intelligent instead? Of course it affects your point. Some tables set up encounters that vastly favor spells and some tables don't. There's no universal truth here.

[Elric VIII]

What if the enemies aren't all humanoids with neither ranged attacks nor magical support that all pile in from the tightest formation possible? What if the enemies are varied and intelligent instead? Of course it affects your point. Some tables set up encounters that vastly favor spells and some tables don't. There's no universal truth here.

In my experience, the more complexity you add to the enemy's tactics, the more you widen the gap between martial and magical effectiveness.

For example:
1) Obstructive terrain can be overcome by flight, but martial will have difficulty maneuvering (and finding enemies if you have fog of war).

2) Hit-and-run tactics make it harder for martial to bring about their full damage with how readied actions work, but spells are not affected as much.

3) invisible/hiding enemies can be detected or flushed out with spells effectively.


There are much fewer scenarios that disadvantage casters. Focus-fire, surprise attacks, and AMF work, but only AMF is more effective against casters than martials.

[Willie the Duck]

There are much fewer scenarios that disadvantage casters. Focus-fire, surprise attacks, and AMF work, but only AMF is more effective against casters than martials.

Don't forget disinformation (illusions, or just tricks) actions to make the party expend precious resources on targets other than the real main villain. Those will disproportionately effect those with daily resource effects like spells.

[ZorroGames]

Oh good, another thread devolving into a spellcaster-v.-martial headbutting contest. I'm sure this time we will finally resolve this issue once and for all.

FIVE Gold Stars to this comment!

Exactly.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, the feat situation actually is related to martials vs casters. Plenty of martial builds depend on specific feats, in contrast with caster builds which are more independent. Additionally, casters only ever have one casting stat unless they multiclass, and can afford to have lower AC and HP than martials since they tend to stay in the back. As a result, casters more often max their casting stat before martials max their attack stat, casters are less likely to be MAD, and casters tend to be able to afford more feats than anyone who doesn't get bonus feats.

I've more often seen casters pick up resilient (constitution) and the like, though this is another situation where game mechanics make certain choices better than others. One of war caster or resilient con is almost mandatory for most caster builds.

[Willie the Duck]

Within the confines of this thread, I've seen it suggested that spellcasters are-- both more MAD than martials, since everyone needs CON, everyone needs either DEX or the STR to have heavy armor, and the spellcasters need their casting stat, -- and that they are less likely to be MAD. I think clearly there is some differences of opinion on what it takes to be a successful caster.

As to Resilient:Con and War Caster, one or both are needed if you focus on concentration spells. Regardless, I think the reason that spellcasters max out their primary stat first has more to do with the fact that martials have more feats which are flat-out better than a straight up +2 stat. The caster has very few feat options (excluding the ones which open up concentration spells) that are that useful (as in, gets used almost every round, like +2 to one's primary stat usually does).

[Elric VIII]

Don't forget disinformation (illusions, or just tricks) actions to make the party expend previous resources on targets other than the real main villain. Those will disproportionately effect those with daily resource effects like spells.

That's actually a good one, but it can also hurt barbarians, monks, and half/third casters as well. Long rest abilities are not the sole domain of full casters.

[Willie the Duck]

That's actually a good one, but it can also hurt barbarians, monks, and half/third casters as well. Long rest abilities are not the sole domain of full casters.

Yes. just like focus-fire and surprise attacks. Are we only talking about things which only effect spellcasters? If so, why? Even grapple aren't caster-specific. I'm guessing only counterspell, stealing of components, and AMF would count.

[Elric VIII]

Yes. just like focus-fire and surprise attacks. Are we only talking about things which only effect spellcasters? If so, why? Even grapple aren't caster-specific. I'm guessing only counterspell, stealing of components, and AMF would count.

I thought we were talking about how the game is not balanced at all levels. My point with the first post was that as casters gain levels their versatility increases beyond that of martial and partial casters. Fighters and co. get better at their main shtick with some small increase in options, whereas casters get a huge increase in options.

This means that the things that challenge a martial character do not need to take into account dozens of options. Coupled with the fact that counters to casters can work just as well against martials gives you a game that will not be balanced.

[Beelzebubba]

So wait... Feats OR attribute increase?

[Beelzebubba]

Someone reply to my incredibly troll-y rant from a long time ago.

Let's see if we can bring it back to indignant posts about feats and stuff.

[ZorroGames]

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

Play 4e instead?

[ZorroGames]

Yeah I hate the feats or ASI bullcrap too. Terrible design decision.

I like making tactical or strategic choices in play.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I like making tactical or strategic choices in play.

I don't get why everyone wants to have all the options all the time. I haven't seen a single character concept that simply needs multiple feats to exist from a story perspective, outside of 'most balls-out powerful things ever'. Sentinel-PAM-GWM is powerful in concert, and ought to cost what it does (sidestepping the balance argument on GWM for a moment).

This is like screaming that everyone deserves proficiency in every skill, and I'll back up that hyperbole a bit by pointing at the 'Skilled' feat. The system absolutely functions with the split, allows you to specialize, make meaningful choices in your development, and further differentiate between other people in your same class. That's a good thing.

[Pex]

I don't get why everyone wants to have all the options all the time. I haven't seen a single character concept that simply needs multiple feats to exist from a story perspective, outside of 'most balls-out powerful things ever'. Sentinel-PAM-GWM is powerful in concert, and ought to cost what it does (sidestepping the balance argument on GWM for a moment).

This is like screaming that everyone deserves proficiency in every skill, and I'll back up that hyperbole a bit by pointing at the 'Skilled' feat. The system absolutely functions with the split, allows you to specialize, make meaningful choices in your development, and further differentiate between other people in your same class. That's a good thing.

Because the math of the game matters. Of course Sentinel-PAM-GWN is powerful. That's why many players take it and not worry about the delay in ASI. That cost is worth it. However, Actor, Keen Mind, Resilient (Intelligence), etc. aren't as powerful and are less likely to be taken because they're not worth the ASI. They might be taken by a Variant Human since it doesn't cost the character anything, but because of Bounded Accuracy +1 to your relevant ability modifier is a big deal. It's a 4 level wait between each choice. That's a long time in terms of real world playing not having what you want.

The cause of the angst is 5E's implementation of Point Buy. It enforces cookie-cutter characters. A tiefling barbarian, a hill dwarf sorcerer, an elf paladin. They just don't happen. If they do happen the player isn't even getting an 18 in their prime until 8th level with no feat, 12th level if they want one and only one feat, Fighter excepted. It's not a tragedy not having an 18, but it's also not an atrocity to want one. Dice rolling doesn't guarantee anything, but the lucky chance is there.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Because the math of the game matters. Of course Sentinel-PAM-GWN is powerful. That's why many players take it and not worry about the delay in ASI. That cost is worth it. However, Actor, Keen Mind, Resilient (Intelligence), etc. aren't as powerful and are less likely to be taken because they're not worth the ASI. They might be taken by a Variant Human since it doesn't cost the character anything, but because of Bounded Accuracy +1 to your relevant ability modifier is a big deal. It's a 4 level wait between each choice. That's a long time in terms of real world playing not having what you want.

The cause of the angst is 5E's implementation of Point Buy. It enforces cookie-cutter characters. A tiefling barbarian, a hill dwarf sorcerer, an elf paladin. They just don't happen. If they do happen the player isn't even getting an 18 in their prime until 8th level with no feat, 12th level if they want one and only one feat, Fighter excepted. It's not a tragedy not having an 18, but it's also not an atrocity to want one. Dice rolling doesn't guarantee anything, but the lucky chance is there.

This, I can agree with. The issue, and one I've been trying to create an entire subsystem just to handle better, is that there's really no incentive to prioritize anything outside of combat capabilities unless you're the team's utility caster or skill monkey. And even then few ever would seriously hamper their fighting strength to do so. Worse, for most classes, these are the only opportunities after your first level to improve in any of these areas beyond proficiency bonus increases or synergistic ASI's.

Which is to say, only a crazy person would ever take Actor without an odd Charisma in a Charisma casting class. And that sucks, because Actor's awesome for roleplaying.

I just don't believe feat bloat can fix this. Most players will take synergistic combat-oriented feats up until the last few levels, if they run out of things at all. You'd still almost never take Actor as a fighter if you haven't picked up Alert, Tough, Sentinel, an appropriate weapon feat or two, even things like Savage Attacker and Dungeon Delver.

I'd rather divorce non-combat feats from the list entirely and offer them at certain levels as an upgrade to their base competency in the social/exploration parts of the game (minus the half ASI bump, naturally). When you give the fighter no other choices but those sorts of feats, they'll take the cool option because it's cool and they like the flavor.

Obviously, I need a lot more than what's in the PHB right now and things don't line up perfectly. It's a work in progress.

[Kryx]

I'd rather divorce non-combat feats from the list entirely and offer them at certain levels as an upgrade to their base competency in the social/exploration parts of the game (minus the half ASI bump, naturally). When you give the fighter no other choices but those sorts of feats, they'll take the cool option because it's cool and they like the flavor.

I did exactly this. Check out "Traits" on my houserules. It's not perfect, but at least offers the opportunity for feats from other pillars.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I did exactly this. Check out "Traits" on my houserules. It's not perfect, but at least offers the opportunity for feats from other pillars.

I'll need to take a good look tonight. I might simply direct my players to you when I'm ready to trial run the system, that could save me a ton of development time I've been dreading.

[ZorroGames]

Because the math of the game matters. Of course Sentinel-PAM-GWN is powerful. That's why many players take it and not worry about the delay in ASI. That cost is worth it. However, Actor, Keen Mind, Resilient (Intelligence), etc. aren't as powerful and are less likely to be taken because they're not worth the ASI. They might be taken by a Variant Human since it doesn't cost the character anything, but because of Bounded Accuracy +1 to your relevant ability modifier is a big deal. It's a 4 level wait between each choice. That's a long time in terms of real world playing not having what you want.

The cause of the angst is 5E's implementation of Point Buy. It enforces cookie-cutter characters. A tiefling barbarian, a hill dwarf sorcerer, an elf paladin. They just don't happen. If they do happen the player isn't even getting an 18 in their prime until 8th level with no feat, 12th level if they want one and only one feat, Fighter excepted. It's not a tragedy not having an 18, but it's also not an atrocity to want one. Dice rolling doesn't guarantee anything, but the lucky chance is there.

It is not a crime if certain feats are not as popular or as "efficient" mechanics wise. Some things just have flavor I want. And my Mountain Dwarf Monk is doing fine even though it is far from optimized and hits zero hps around once a game when there are only squishy characters in a party and "hit and run" leaving the wizard, sorceror, and/or warlock hanging in the breeze is really not an option. The game where there was another (wood elf) monk, a half-elf paladin, and a dwarf barbarian in the mix was heavenly!

Love the role play with NPCs (no accents, especially Scottish for my characters,) other players, and the DMs.

[Easy_Lee]

It is not a crime if certain feats are not as popular or as "efficient" mechanics wise. Some things just have flavor I want. And my Mountain Dwarf Monk is doing fine even though it is far from optimized and hits zero hps around once a game when there are only squishy characters in a party and "hit and run" leaving the wizard, sorceror, and/or warlock hanging in the breeze is really not an option. The game where there was another (wood elf) monk, a half-elf paladin, and a dwarf barbarian in the mix was heavenly!

Love the role play with NPCs (no accents, especially Scottish for my characters,) other players, and the DMs.

See, this is what I'm talking about. And it gives me an idea.

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.

[ZorroGames]

snip

Which is to say, only a crazy person would ever take Actor without an odd Charisma in a Charisma casting class. And that sucks, because Actor's awesome for roleplaying.

I just don't believe feat bloat can fix this. Most players will take synergistic combat-oriented feats up until the last few levels, if they run out of things at all. You'd still almost never take Actor as a fighter if you haven't picked up Alert, Tough, Sentinel, an appropriate weapon feat or two, even things like Savage Attacker and Dungeon Delver.

Snip

Call me crazy then because other than one weapon feat (ST or DE based) those show up in none of my active or "reserve" (unrecoverable death situations) builds.

Sh. Sh. OR Cbe for DE fighter; MAM or HAM, and SM for the STfighter.

MI for my variant Human SCAG Arcana Cleric at first level but mostly for flavor of a guy in love with divine and arcane casting.

Alert, Tough (niche build someday,) Sentinel, Savage Attacker, Durable, even DD are not on my planning list.

I design the character first (my killers - monks, and fighters, have a flavor reason for their mayhem; my casters Clerics and... well whatever I eventually build... are more than MMM (Magic Murder Machines) because they have a role in life outside of hack and slash.)

My LN MD Monk will work with most any character to defeat Evil and, lesser, "Chaos" plots. Risk his life outrageously for a Kobold or Goblin character? That is highly unlikely. Help or assist them in combat sure. Climb out on rotting leather ropes over lava? Who do you want to get your share?

Another Dwarf, sure, even if I dislike the character. Human, elf, half-elf, sigh, "for the team" yes.

All my characters have those type of dynamics worked before play.

Going Archery/Sh. Sh./CBE just to have the cool feats for a bland character? Not so much.

[ZorroGames]

See, this is what I'm talking about. And it gives me an idea.

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.

Maybe but currently I am limited to AL games.

How it was done would make the difference in how viable it was but in theory it should work.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Call me crazy then because other than one weapon feat (ST or DE based) those show up in none of my active or "reserve" (unrecoverable death situations) builds.

Sh. Sh. OR Cbe for DE fighter; MAM or HAM, and SM for the STfighter.

MI for my variant Human SCAG Arcana Cleric at first level but mostly for flavor of a guy in love with divine and arcane casting.

Alert, Tough (niche build someday,) Sentinel, Savage Attacker, Durable, even DD are not on my planning list.

I design the character first (my killers - monks, and fighters, have a flavor reason for their mayhem; my casters Clerics and... well whatever I eventually build... are more than MMM (Magic Murder Machines) because they have a role in life outside of hack and slash.)

My LN MD Monk will work with most any character to defeat Evil and, lesser, "Chaos" plots. Risk his life outrageously for a Kobold or Goblin character? That is highly unlikely. Help or assist them in combat sure. Climb out on rotting leather ropes over lava? Who do you want to get your share?

Another Dwarf, sure, even if I dislike the character. Human, elf, half-elf, sigh, "for the team" yes.

All my characters have those type of dynamics worked before play.

Going Archery/Sh. Sh./CBE just to have the cool feats for a bland character? Not so much.

I don't either, but it's due to opportunity cost. If I got freebie feats all over, I'd probably take all those, though, outside of niche dynamic characters where I just have to have something for the flavor. I applaud players that do this, and wish they didn't have to be mechanically punished for it. Being cool shouldn't be this limiting.

My point was that in a game where you get tons of feats, a player still wouldn't be pressed into grabbing those neat feats over the more boring ones because the boring ones don't contribute to their combat abilities. 3.x is exactly like that, and it's an easy reference for why things end up that way. Whether players mean to or not, they're going to lean towards effectiveness over flavor. Newbies that start with flavor get scared off when those choices leave them wanting in a fight and they end up getting killed, or watching a more boring character build have more fun. Extra feats won't stop this.

This is a gamist problem. Your roleplaying can be great without the need for the crunch of feats, or even abilities or skills. I want to create a proper incentive to lead more players into fluffy roleplay through the gates of crunchy statistics.

[Kryx]

Perhaps feats ought to be split into two categories: combat and non combat. The latter should not compete with the former. These should be on separate tracks.

This is what I do and I mention it just above. :)

[Pex]

It is not a crime if certain feats are not as popular or as "efficient" mechanics wise. Some things just have flavor I want. And my Mountain Dwarf Monk is doing fine even though it is far from optimized and hits zero hps around once a game when there are only squishy characters in a party and "hit and run" leaving the wizard, sorceror, and/or warlock hanging in the breeze is really not an option. The game where there was another (wood elf) monk, a half-elf paladin, and a dwarf barbarian in the mix was heavenly!

Love the role play with NPCs (no accents, especially Scottish for my characters,) other players, and the DMs.

Certainly. Bounded Accuracy, to its credit, allows for non-optimal builds to work well enough but only so far. You don't absolutely need an 18 in your prime at 8th level, but for those who want it and they're not wrong to want it and are still capable of enjoying all the roleplaying with NPCs, it gets in the way of feat choices and people aren't liking that. To them it's not a necessary game design.