What are your favorite things in 5th edition?

[Matthew Koelbl]

I finally got my copy of the PHB, and now that I can see different path options within each class, I'm really feeling the approach the class design, even more than what I saw in the playtest.

So I figured I'd start up a thread for everyone to share the elements they've noticed that have them most excited or interested in the edition, or any other stuff that just looks cool.

Here are the big ones for me thus far:

1) Character choices having a big impact.

I'm really impressed by how much weight goes into the different character path choices within each class. Wizard specialists not just being about having different spells, but actually getting truly unique abilities that fit the flavor of their specialization. Same goes for cleric domains, with domain impacting skills, equipment, spells, special abilities... that's really cool.

It also shows me the direction, I'm guessing, for any future content. Will we eventually see future classes like the Psion? Sure, seems likely. But plenty of other character options seem like they will simply be incorporated as path variants within the existing classes. Why come out with a Psychic Warrior class, for example, when you can just make that a Martial Archetype for the Fighter - just as the Eldritch Knight is?

Adding new variants within each class seems like it will let you capture plenty of unique builds and concepts without needing to resort to countless new classes / prestige classes / paragon paths / etc. Which has me hopeful that they will have plenty of room to develop new content without going down the usual path of option bloat and optimization.

2) Character abilities that really feel unique.

Warlocks who have made pacts with Great Old Ones (ie, Far Realm / Star Pact / etc) just straight up get telepathy at level 1. Wild Magic Sorcerers have a chance to trigger a wild magic surge every time they cast a spell - or more often, if the DM invokes it upon them! Rogues are wily, crafty skirmishers who get free utility actions each round of the combat, letting them dash safely past enemies, dart out of sight to go hide, disable traps while tossing a dagger at a foe, etc.

I feel like they have done a good job, with many abilities, of giving out benefits that feel meaningful and useful, without being overpowered. I'm not sold on every such build - the Shadow Monk looks awesome, for example, but the Elemental Monk hasn't really grabbed me.

But nonetheless, I like how just about every class has something unique going for it (or at least has some options in that category). I feel like it avoids the disparity of 3.5 (where some characters were pretty mundane from start to finish), while also avoiding the 'sameiness' that could crop up in 4E.

3) Taking the best of both worlds.

I like seeing the blend of concepts from editions - not just in the mechanics, but also in the flavor. Discovering the Avenger was still around - as a Paladin buld - was a great surprise.

I was thrilled at how the Warlock incorporates elements of both the 3.5 warlock (with at-will invocations) plus elements of the 4E Warlock (with different pacts, unique spells like Hellish Rebuke, the Fiendish Warlock's ability to gain temps by killing foes, and the ability to Hex enemies for ongoing damage bonuses).

Does it support every build found in every edition? Well, no, but that's a bit of an impossible task. But I was impressed at how many different versions and references seemed to be around.

Does it only have the best options from every edition? Given that 'best' is subjective, the answer there is inevitably going to be no. There are certain some elements I'm not entirely sold on, as well as things I miss from some editions that got left behind. But they obviously made an effort to try and incorporate as much as possible for those who liked different styles of play, as well as different elements of flavor that cropped up in each edition.

4) Character build flexibility.

One of my fears about the new edition was that options would be somewhat limited. And there are some areas where elements of that are true - once you make some of your big choices (character path within a class, feats, etc), you might not have many more decisions to make within your character build.

However, within those choices themselves, I feel like there are a vast number of playstyles and character builds that are not just available, but feel perfectly viable for play.

Fighter is a great example of this. Do I want a 4E style tank that protects his allies? I take the Protection Fighting Style, the Battle Master Archetype with Goading Attack, and the Sentinel Feat, and suddenly I've got all the best aspects of the 4E protector.

Do I instead want an Elven Bladesinger? I go Eldritch Knight with the Dueling Fighting Style, a finesse weapon, and the Defensive Duelist and the Mobile feat. I'm fast, agile, hard to hit and able to wield sword and spell to good effect.

Or let's go for a Warlord! I take the Inspiring Leader feat, and snag Commander's Strike, Manuevering Attack and Rally as Battle Master options. I can hand out temps to help my friends, and give them free movement and attacks (with bonuses) on my turn.

Having a class that can so easily accomodate those builds - as well as more classic builds like sharpshooting archers, or charging greatsword wielders - or more unusual stuff like unarmed grapplers or shield bashers - is a very good sign to me.

The big worry, of course, is whether those builds are viable at all levels. You don't get a feat until level 4, after all. You don't get your fighter archetype until level 3. On the other hand, it seems intentional that the first few levels should get pretty quickly - and are even perhaps deliberately less defined, so that you have a few levels before really having to decide where to focus one's build. I'll wait to see how that plays out.

Still - overall, I find myself thinking of countless different types of characters I can build and play with these rules. For me, that is a very good sign of things to come.

[Smizzlestix]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The big worry, of course, is whether those builds are viable at all levels. You don't get a feat until level 4, after all. You don't get your fighter archetype until level 3. On the other hand, it seems intentional that the first few levels should get pretty quickly - and are even perhaps deliberately less defined, so that you have a few levels before really having to decide where to focus one's build. I'll wait to see how that plays out.

If I recall correctly, experienced players are advised to start at level three so they can just incorporate their archetype straightaway. This also makes the first level up an interesting situation, as you can take a multiclass level, or stay in your class and get bonus attribute points, or stay in your class and take a feat. Even if you start at level one, however, the first two levels are really, really quick.

An added - and likely intentional - benefit of having archetypes kick in at class level three is that it limits abusive multiclassing. Whether you start at level one or level three, you're going to get your "home" archetype very quickly/immediately, but getting a second archetype takes a very big experience investment, especially when so many class features scale to class level.

I do think the 5E feat system is going to lead to many more human characters, though, as humans can take a feat straight off the bat, and many players are probably going to favor the human's "two ability points and a feat" rubric over the other races' "three ability points" rubric.

[Adjule]

Smizzlestix wrote:

I do think the 5E feat system is going to lead to many more human characters, though, as humans can take a feat straight off the bat, and many players are probably going to favor the human's "two ability points and a feat" rubric over the other races' "three ability points" rubric.

That's if the DM allows the variant human, even if feats are available in the game.

Right now, I am playing in a 5th edition game on Sundays (starter set adventure), playing a mountain dwarf fighter with the defense fighting style (gonna be going eldritch knight). I am definitely enjoying the new system. I like practically the entire thing so far. Only negatives for me are the warlock (was never a fan of it in 3rd edition, still not one for this edition either), and the stupid decision to have only 2 subclasses for sorcerer, druid, and ranger. Also the removal of animal companions for druids.

Overall, I think it is a great system, and wish I would have given the playtest documents a fair shake (I wrote it off due to the monster entries, in particular the monstrosity category and no explanation as to what constituted a creature as monstrosity. Dumb reason, I know, but the monsters are some of my favorite things about these games, and it didn't sit well with me).

I still have gripes about some of the monsters (only 4 age categories of dragon just irks me beyond reason, and I hate it). I do really look forward to the book's release, as it is usually my favorite books that get published. Sad that it doesn't have a section for creating/converting monsters to the new edition, and I hope the DMG has something of the sort.

Still not happy they haven't put out a conversion guide. I would love to port over some things I enjoyed in previous editions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, pathfinder, and 4th), but with a few of them stronger than the newest edition (3rd, pathfinder, and 4th mostly), it makes it a bit tough to eyeball it.

[JoeJ]

Right now my top four are:

1) No magic mart. Characters rely on their abilities instead of their bank accounts.

2) Character creation. I don't feel like I have to scrutinize hundreds of trait/feat/skill/spell combinations and plan out a 20-level build before I can start playing. There aren't very many prerequisites, and the ones that are there are much easier to meet without extensive preplanning.

3) Movement during combat. Specifically, not having to stand still to get all my attacks. I can run around, jump, swing from the chandelier, and try to outmaneuver my enemies. All without giving up my ability to do damage.

4) Fighters and rogues can have nice things now! Fighty and sneaky things, that don't require magic (although they can get that too if they want).

[JoeJ]

Oh, and I almost forgot a huge one:

5) DEX for attack/damage as a weapon quality. I don't need special feats or class abilities just to use a rapier the way it was designed to be used.

[TheRavyn]

1. No AoOs! (Ok, maybe there is ONE OA now, but that's nothing compared to the rollfest that is d20-style AoOs. "I glance upward." "Sorry, that provokes an AoO!" blech, good riddance.).

2. Streamlining stuff like Vulnerability/Resistance, buffs, etc.

3. The flexibility and power of magic.

4. Backgrounds.

[Daenar]

Bounded accuracy, mobile combat, simple mechanics that are flexible. Dwarves with strength bonus, less fiddly convoluted and unnecessarily wordy rules. Fluff now carries a bit of weight. Optimized characters aren't vastly note powerful than flavor characters
The list goes on.

[Lakesidefantasy]

I like the general openness in the rules. Not just the increased dependence on the Dungeon Master's rulings, but room to add new rules depending on what a particular group wants out of the game.

I love the sweeping out of all the little impossible to recall modifiers.

I also like the artwork. There seems to have been a decision to step away from the current trend of "dungeon punk" style. I don't think I've seen a cake with pink icing illustrated in a rule book before. And, a drinking scene in a pup I would actually like to visit, rather than in a seedy bar where I would fear for my life.

[Kthulhu]

Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I love the sweeping out of all the little impossible to recall modifiers.

I like a lot about 5e, but this is probably the biggest thing that makes me put it ahead of Pathfinder in terms of.systems i like/ want to play/DM.

[Airon87]

PROS

Tiny actions like opening doors, getting items from the backpack etc... are integrated into movement. Extremely adjustable system: you want to do something that should take a bit of time, the DM can go "ok, you can do that but you can only move 20 ft instead of 30". Like standing up. Fantastic.

Spellcasting: a great step towards destroying the "ok, new day, you saddle up, fighter and rogue can go to the bathroom/make coffee/text their gf while cleric and wizard prepare spells". Hated that, now there's much less of it.

Cunning action for the rogue, Extra attacks without sacrificing movement and Finesse weapons.

Backgrounds! Beautifully done, I would've liked a few more.

Modularity: Feats are optional, Multiclassing is optional, the new DM guide will introduce variations to make the combat more strategic, etc... but it's all optional. DM's guide will be pretty much like Unhearted Arcana for 3.5, I think.

CONS

I do worry that there will be less strategy in spellcasting. With only one buff/control active at the time, seems like casters will just be artillery. I don't really like that.

Very difficult, if not impossible, to pick up a skill you overlooked at character creation. True, it's still possible to attempt it with ability modifier, but I would've liked an "new proficiency" somewhere in the firts 6 levels.

[Daenar]

250 days training and one gold per day training fee nets a language or tool. At DM's discretion other types of benefits can be gained this way(paraphrased).

[Blue_Drake]

The simpler more streamlined rules clinched it for me. One read through of the PHB and I'm confident that I could run a game without a copy of the rules in front of me.

[Stefan Hill]

What I like about 5e so far is you can't do this:

So much complete loss of control of the rules

I spent 4 years getting a 1st ed. Magic-User to 16 level (playing nearly every lunchtime at school) and I don't think he managed 600 hp points of damage in TOTAL.

I am NOT saying PF is a bad game, just any semblance of in game controls to keep things sensible left by Teleport Without Error several years ago.

For me the huge strength of 5e is Adventurers are cool and do neat stuff but they are still just Folks (as Mal would say).

[DaveMage]

Stefan Hill wrote:

For me the huge strength of 5e is Adventurers are cool and do neat stuff but they are still just Folks (as Mal would say).

That's a great way of putting it.

[Buri]

My favorite singular thing in D&D is how they treated combat actions. By mere virtue of being a character, you can be competent. I'd guess they did that in relation to grouping feats together.

Probably my second favorite thing is what they did with spells. Magic is scary. It's big. It's powerful. It's versatile. But, it doesn't break the game or marginalize martials mostly due to the restrictions on how they're used.

[Adjule]

After playing 3 sessions now, here are a few of my own.

Being able to move, do your full attack routine, and move again. This will be taking some getting used to, and I usually forget that you can do this by default.

The fighter's (my class) Second Wind and Action Surge abilities are a nice addition. I know the Second Wind saved my dwarf from death.

There isn't really much need for a class with healing capabilities. The hit dice healing mechanic is weird, but can be a nice addition. You can easily drink a healing potion, as taking anything from your backpack is basically a free action.

Opportunity Attacks. These have been greatly reduced, and only trigger when someone leaves the reach of their opponent. So you can shoot someone within 5 feet of you, cast a spell, drink a potion, drop your pants and moon them, or anything you want so long as you don't move out of their reach.

Melee martial type class's Protection fighting style can save someone's butt. As a reaction (which means you would lose any opportunity attacks) you can use your shield (gotta use a shield for this style) to impose disadvantage to attacks against someone adjacent to you. Don't have my PHB within reach, so not sure if that's all attacks that turn or just the one attack.

I think this is much better and more comprehensible than my previous post in this thread.

[Mordo]

At first glance, here's what I like:

- Bounded accuracy
- Far less feat (but more revelent one)
- Mobility while attacking
- Flavor text to spells like Knock and find traps that keep rogue speciality specials
- System is less rule dependant
- Concentration check for some spells (but I will probably house rule that, you get a +2 to DC for every spell you maintain, this may be more flexible but won't allow caster to cast loads of buff spells)
- weapon properties like finess instead of feat

[Samurai632]

I think everyone above has listed everything I like about this new PHB. My favorite part of the book, isn't even mechanical!

It's the appendices!

They have a quick list of deities available for worship, and they list the gods of Forgotten Realms, Ebberon, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk, (along with the classic demi-human gods, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, and Norse.) If you delve a little deeper, the next appendix has a brief description of the Outer Planes. Which they very briefly touch on all the known, classic, Outer Planes, but also mention The Far Realm, and even Sigil and The Outlands!! This has gotten myself, and many players I know, excited beyond control. My hope is that WoTC returns to the format that TSR had in they're last run before being bought, which was, less splat/rules and more about all those wonderful campaign settings!! I would really LOVE to see an update to Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Maztica, Planescape, and Spelljammer. Of course they need to update Greyhawk, just for the selfish reason that I miss Oerth.

[Daenar]

Yyeeeerssss! Bring them ALL back! Hasbro would have me 100% if all the old settings or even most got brought back. Dark Sun! Birthright! Dragonlance! Forgotten Realms( my ultimate favorite)!

[Pan]

Well forgettable realms is the core setting they are running with so your ultimate favorite already got brought.

[Samurai632]

Daenar wrote:

Yyeeeerssss! Bring them ALL back! Hasbro would have me 100% if all the old settings or even most got brought back. Dark Sun! Birthright! Dragonlance! Forgotten Realms( my ultimate favorite)!

Daenar - as Pan said, FR is considered the Core setting for this edition of the game. But a cool side note, I do not have the book in front of me, but in one of the chapters, they say how one of the monk orders is from the eastern realm of Kara-Tur.

If they update Kara-tur ..... I might have to switch to Forgotten Realms since my favorite class is the Samurai! Which after reading that in the PHB, I'm really hoping they update Oriental Adventures.

[Wrath]

What I'm liking in addition to what others may have said:

It looks like I'll be able to run Paizo adventures using this system. It's a close enough match that I'll just need the bestiary to figure most of it.

Assuming that's true, and my group wants to try the new system, then it will save me a ton of money and still give me access to great adventures.

Cheers

[Dennis Harry]

I like it for the simplicity of character creation.

The options of using feats or not using feats creates the modularity that WoTC claimed would be present and I think they came through on that promise. The feats themselves do multiple things which is a great concept as well.

Love the backgrounds, my only complaint is that the options are a bit limited, but I think the DMG will give more choices in that department. Someone on another thread pointed out to me that these backgrounds were the result of several concepts melded together and I get that, still I was expecting something a bit more robust from the stand point of choices in the PHB.

[donnald johnson]

Once Dungeon and Dragon magazines come back, which I am expecting not long after the DMG, then all the bits can be expanded upon easily, and fairly cheaply. Traditions, backgrounds, oaths, fighting styles, feats, spells, archetypes, and all of it. It will be great.

[Adjule]

Only if they divorce them from that stupid D&D Insider subscription s*$@. I miss the old magazines. I am so over all this digital BS.

[Diffan]

I really like the Dungeon Dragon online subscription. To be able to easily reference ANY magazine, article, adventure, monster, item whatever in just a few seconds AND not take up a full shelf.and a half of space is awesome.

[Jaçinto]

Smizzlestix wrote:

I do think the 5E feat system is going to lead to many more human characters, though, as humans can take a feat straight off the bat, and many players are probably going to favor the human's "two ability points and a feat" rubric over the other races' "three ability points" rubric.

That is a variant rule since feats are optional and not default, as determined by if the DM wants to deal with that. Even then it says, in the rule "If your campaign uses the optional feat system from chapter 5, your Dungeon Master might allow these variant traits, all of which replace the human's Ability Score Increase trait." So even if you are using feats, the DM can choose not to use that variant to avoid the first level power boost for humans and have everyone start on the same basic level. I kinda like that better because everyone starts as an amateur and then later, maybe, gets an incredible feat of prowess to make them exceptionally unique in their profession. Even then any level later where you would gain an ability point after the first, you have to make a choice. Ability score increase or a feat.

[Grey Lensman]

Diffan wrote:

I really like the Dungeon Dragon online subscription. To be able to easily reference ANY magazine, article, adventure, monster, item whatever in just a few seconds AND not take up a full shelf.and a half of space is awesome.

Some people prefer to pay for something once and own it forever rather than pay for monthly access. I don't mind the second, but the amount of content I need to be willing to do so is more than a couple of monthly magazines.

[Kthulhu]

You realize that under DDI, you had the option to download PDFs of the complete issues of Dragon and Dungeon, right? In fact, I paid for one month of DDI right at the end of both magazines, and downloaded the entire 4e run of both. For the price of 1 month of DDI. And those PDFs are mine to keep forever.

[Diffan]

Kthulhu wrote:

You realize that under DDI, you had the option to download PDFs of the complete issues of Dragon and Dungeon, right? In fact, I paid for one month of DDI right at the end of both magazines, and downloaded the entire 4e run of both. For the price of 1 month of DDI. And those PDFs are mine to keep forever.

Exactly. I've downloaded most of them while paying for DDI.

[SmiloDan]

I like how easy it is to level up. There's a lot less fiddly little math bits. Basically, you get some more hit points and a class feature or two. Maybe pick some spells, and once in a while, increase your proficiency bonus.

The really big choices are usually at levels 2 or 3 (Domains or Specialty Schools, or class archetype or path), but once they're made, most of your choices are made. This means there are consequences to your actions.

I kind of miss the customization at 1st level. It seems very modular: Race, Class, Background, and you're done. It seems that almost every class has the same attack roll or Save DC.

[thenovalord]

The numbers may be similar at level one but it's the bits n pieces of race and class that make them flavoursome and different

[2097]

I like that there is less of everything without feeling like less. It's simpler.
One example is how you can just mix moving with your actions anyway you want without a feat.
I also like that it has so much support for theatre of the mind. More than 1e.
The action economy also seems well managed. Action, bonus action, reaction… it's a little confusing but it makes it clear just what you can and can't do.

Another thing I absolutety love is that class features doesn't step on "what everyone can already try". Anyone can make a lunging attack but the battlemaster gets an extra die of damage. Anyone is rewarded for making a sneak attack but the rogue is more so. Anyone can climb, anyone can hide…

Of course, my very favorite things have already been mentioned: bounded accuracy and advantage. Advantage is genius in how many other parts of the design it enables: crit likelihood, less subjective adjucation (which helps with theatre of the mind), less arithmetics, and most importantly an increased focus on positioning of fictional elements beyond just 2d spatial positioning.

Chandelier-swinging, sneaking, tree climbing, trashtalking, setting things on fire… here we come! Everything Fate promises, advantage delivers, without a fragile point economy. Things in the game world matter mechanically in a consistent and easy-to-remember way.

They've really let us loose, it's not just "do one of these seven prepared things on your turn", it's way more open: "what do you want to do?"

"I want to climb the colossus and pour sand in his face and yell 'That's what you get, son! That's what you get!'"

And the game supports it. Not just allows it; it supports it. I ♥ 5e.

[2097]

PS:
I want to clarify that I've never been a fan of the various "describe what you are doing in a cool way to get a bonus" system of some other games. Like instead of "I run up to it and attack it" it's "I take some steps along the wall, leaping over tables, and attack it!". Not dissing those who do like that, I'm just clarifying that instead, in my take on 5e, it's the positioning, the making the fictional elements matter (as opposed to the fictional style matter). Like "OK, we hide on the roof on a nearby building... can we keep watch over their hideout from there?". Tactics and choices within the fictional space --- so awesome!

"I try to use the table as a cover" gives you bonus because it's an idea that might work, not because it's an idea you described in a cool way.

I'm also on board with the randomness of advantage as opposed to numerical mods. Is this situation worth +1? +5? +7? Tough call, DM. Let the dice decide! You rolled a 5 and a 19? I guess it was worth +12 today, congratulations!

[Stefan Hill]

2097 wrote:

I'm also on board with the randomness of advantage as opposed to numerical mods. Is this situation worth +1? +5? +7? Tough call, DM. Let the dice decide! You rolled a 5 and a 19? I guess it was worth +12 today, congratulations!

That is what we find with the Advantage/Disadvantage system, it has stopped the 'bean counting', every action has a degree of randomness.

I think WotC achieved what they were after a Roleplaying game with the charm of 2e AD&D.

[thenovalord]

Yeah. I think charm is a great one word summary. Well done Stefan

[lastknightleft]

This edition won me back to DnD when I thought I had given it up for good. My favorite things are monster stat blocks and the death of the 5ft step.

[SmiloDan]

We just hit 7th level, and I'm not a big fan of the 4th level cleric spells, so I'm loving that I can "spontaneously" use it for a cure "critical" wounds or a super-charged spiritual weapon or a bless that affects the whole party or double-powered inflict wounds (6d10!) or nearly doubled guiding bolt (7d6!).

[Ganryu]

1: Increased combat mobility for everyone.
2: Fewer feats. The existing feats are "bigger".
3: Monsters don't have feats. (this is huge)

If anything, the second and third points are vital to a future version of Pathfinder in my opinion. Pathfinder suffers from having too many fiddly bits.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I like that I can play the game without feeling like I need a slide rule and a calculator along with a protractor and detailed grid map.

Also, Advantage and Disadvantage are cool.

[Arakhor]

Maybe 5th Edition simplified a little too much, but I like the concept of Advantage & Disadvantage at the very least and, over the last few years, I've been greatly soured towards endless tiny bonuses to various things.

High-level casters are less powerful and we even have "semi-Vancian" magic, with shared spell slots and spell-caster synergy. That's huge.

[EntrerisShadow]

Ganryu wrote:

1: Increased combat mobility for everyone.

2: Fewer feats. The existing feats are "bigger".
3: Monsters don't have feats. (this is huge)

If anything, the second and third points are vital to a future version of Pathfinder in my opinion. Pathfinder suffers from having too many fiddly bits.

All of those, but especially #1. It is so, so much simpler when everyone has a maximum of 6 attacks (TWF Fighter) and just does it. No, Swift-Free-Move, Feat-to-Move-and-Flurry.

Really what I love about 5th ed is so much about what it took out, rather than what it added.

No more Full Attack/Standard Attack distinction. You have 2 attacks? You have 2 attacks.

Fewer skills to keep track of.

No skill points to assign every level.

Fewer feats, meaning fewer trap feats.

No more 1.5x Str multiplier for THF making every other fighting style obsolete.

Using common sense for which attribute to use (STR instead of DEX for thrown, DEX instead of STR for finesse) instead of tying them up with feat taxes.

[Lorathorn]

I wonder though, if Pathfinder's strength in modularity might see a simplified variant in the near future. I don't know how feasible it is, though.

[2097]

The Pathfinder Beginner Box is a good, coherent game system, so why don't Paizo just build from that.

[Lorathorn]

You are correct, but the Beginner Box is also built on a foundation that leads to further complications. I think the strategy guide might be a step in the direction of simplification (or more accurately, simplified approach to the current material), but there is no reason that Paizo could not, for instance, release some sort of material that removes options such as feats (as the D&D basic rules does), or streamlines saves and other bonuses.

Everything that Paizo has done with Pathfinder, so far, is introduce more and more options. This is not a bad thing, per se, but does begin to exclude portions of the gaming population.

Not everyone wants to learn about traits, feats, optional class features, optional race features and archetypes and spell lists that span 4+ books. For someone such as myself, I kind of relish in it, in that I can build very specific characters that do not come off like a compromise to a vision or idea. However, I find myself doing this for my players more and more, because they couldn't be bothered to fiddle with it.

Just as the PFS core is scaling back and offers an alternative, I would imagine some sort of rules light alternative to Pathfinder that is more inclusive. This isn't imperative, but seeing as how such a document might be compiled in a much shorter format, it might be worth the effort.

[lastknightleft]

I love feats, I'd hate to see them go, I just fell in love with the way that 5e does them, I've always said feats should be nice not required even wrote an article about it a long time ago for the DnD 3.5 forums in the articles that required approval before they got posted. 5ed honestly just did them so well and I think the human variant fits perfectly with Golarion because players think the feat is so awesome that humans become the most common choice for characters so game groups wind up with more humans than any other race.

[Lorathorn]

I've started to think that feats are for veteran gamers. A person that might be new to tabletop gaming may not want or even understand the point of feats until they are ready to build upon their knowledge. I like that 5e does that as a means of advancing the complexity of the game in a more natural way.

I'd rather that the players just take a straightforward bonus on even levels that they already understand. The approach does not require some kind of feat rubric or level planning like feats now tend to (save for the easily digestible feats such as toughness and dodge).

Then again, I would suppose that a simplified list composed of just such feats might be another approach to the issue.

[Ganryu]

lastknightleft wrote:

I love feats, I'd hate to see them go, I just fell in love with the way that 5e does them, I've always said feats should be nice not required even wrote an article about it a long time ago for the DnD 3.5 forums in the articles that required approval before they got posted. 5ed honestly just did them so well and I think the human variant fits perfectly with Golarion because players think the feat is so awesome that humans become the most common choice for characters so game groups wind up with more humans than any other race.

It's what 5e does with feats that makes them acceptable again.

By removing all feats with minor effects, the ones remaining are impactful. This means that as feats are now big and important again, trivial effects are relegated to being either available to everyone, removed from the game, or given as a class ability.

In addition, as feats are no longer so abundant, they are not part of monster design. This frees up much effort for game masters that was otherwise spent on learning feats.

The effect that feats had on monsters was that they obscured information from the game master. The GM had to research feats in advance, as monsters were equipped with them but the statblocks did not explain the feats.

Lorathorn: I disagree. I've played the game with people both experienced and inexperienced with Pathfinder. Everyone found feats VERY easy to grasp conceptually.

The people I play with have most trouble with favoured class rules and grapple rules. Favoured class rules are NOT intuitive. They make absolute sense to someone who's played 3.5 and then moved to Pathfinder, but for someone who starts on Pathfinder, they are confusing as heck.

[thejeff]

Ganryu wrote:

Lorathorn: I disagree. I've played the game with people both experienced and inexperienced with Pathfinder. Everyone found feats VERY easy to grasp conceptually.

The people I play with have most trouble with favoured class rules and grapple rules. Favoured class rules are NOT intuitive. They make absolute sense to someone who's played 3.5 and then moved to Pathfinder, but for someone who starts on Pathfinder, they are confusing as heck.

Feats are easy to grasp conceptually. Paging through books of them to figure out which combinations work best and setting up the prerequisites for the ones you really want is where inexperienced people have trouble. And avoiding the Timmy Cards.

[SmiloDan]

I think it would be neat if there were lists of feats arranged by character concept. Like knight, spell blaster, swashbuckler, archer, scholar, sneak-thief, tank, striker, two-weapon fighter, heavy weapon fighter, shield master, uber-healer, buffer, party face, etc. etc.