Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
My wife and I have created humans before. They CAN be just as fun.

That said, Human Variant would be awesome too. I'm not saying I DON'T want that. Just saying that humans CAN be fun.

Give humans a chance!

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Give humans a chance!

They have a ways to go before they can match Corellon's kids think.

Lol. This IS true. I must say. Humans are on the bottom of the totem pole. I love elves most, I think. Half-orcs are huge on my list, and sorely missed in BG3 right now. Dwarves are high on my list, and I like Aasimar, Genasi and Dragonborn.

Niara's going to be mad, but halflings, humans, yuan-ti purebloods, tieflings... they're kind of on the bottom of the list of my most desired characters. I like them all, mind you, but they're not the ones I usually gravitate towards. I don't even know why, but drow always seem to stand out for me, and I really really don't like their culture or society. Makes no sense to me. Wood elves always seem to be right there along with drow, and half-elves are probably the most chosen race for me - whether half-drow or half-wood elf or whatever.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
OP Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Wormerine
No one is forcing you to boost your stat if you don't find that fun.
That is the thing. smile
I do ...

I want to have my stats good and i would like to try some of those Feats with high stats, to see how they will work ... since (quite honestly) that is when i shall take them. laugh
As i said, i have tryed few times to take feat instead of stat incerase ... and results was usualy, (to put it in my words so you can understand it in context of my "shove logic" if you want to call it that) "not fun". :P

And since there were promised some mechanics that would help to to fulfill this desire ...
And there is some race that is highly and often demanded by many people ...

I just saw an option to kill two flies with single strike. wink


Vive et vivant. wink
Joined: Oct 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.

+1

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The reason to limit stats is because players can literally focus too much on a particular Ability score and make them so tough it's imbalanced.
Yeah, I suppose I never gelled with raising core stats when leveling up. I prefered BG1&2/Pillars approach when you define stats during creation and that is that - that's who the character is. Their progression is achieved through different means, and stats stay the same.

I just don't find stat increase to be a mechanically interesting choice. When creating characters you will always favour about two skills. When given a choice to increase skills you will focus on those skills as those are important to you. I found it less offensive in Pathfinder when it was just something I would do, but I don't like how it is handles in 5e.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
OP Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.
I like this idea aswell ...
At least for Early Acess (and potentialy as part of difficiulty settings) more potential Feats mean more potential testing! :P


Vive et vivant. wink
Joined: Oct 2020
A
member
Offline
member
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The reason to limit stats is because players can literally focus too much on a particular Ability score and make them so tough it's imbalanced.
Yeah, I suppose I never gelled with raising core stats when leveling up. I prefered BG1&2/Pillars approach when you define stats during creation and that is that - that's who the character is. Their progression is achieved through different means, and stats stay the same.

I just don't find stat increase to be a mechanically interesting choice. When creating characters you will always favour about two skills. When given a choice to increase skills you will focus on those skills as those are important to you. I found it less offensive in Pathfinder when it was just something I would do, but I don't like how it is handles in 5e.

I agree with the only caveat being (in Sazza’s voice). These feats are so BORING! smile

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by avahZ Darkwood
I agree with the only caveat being (in Sazza’s voice). These feats are so BORING! smile
Yeah.....

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
I do agree. We need more feats and better ones. I do only ever use a few that are in game now. I think I mentioned them all.

Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
The question of feats seems to come up quite a bit, I forget which designer it was who said this, but supposedly only a small fraction of groups play with feats or maybe it was only a small fraction of players when given a choice, choose them over a stat gain. I guess I can understand why, buffing your primary stat gives you probably the most utility, but it also means every character in a class, will start to look the same over a long enough period.

Edit: Thinking about this, I'm guessing the fact that most people never play characters to higher levels also contributes to this.

Of course if you're not going to be a Barbarian with 24s what are you even doing...bro.

Last edited by Sozz; 01/03/22 07:11 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Frankly if it was up to me I’d revamp the feat system entirely.

No feat should also include ability increase and you should get BOTH ability increases and feats at alternate timing while leveling up (i.e. “starting at level 2, one of the two every two more levels”).

But this is more a problem with how 5th edition works rather than an issue with the game’s implementation.

This would also reduce the CRAVING NEED for rolling stats that many feel, incidentally.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
I'm not against re-separating feats from ASI marks, however it's not as simple as some folks initially assume; in the current 5e structure, ASIs aren't tied to character level, but to class level, and some classes get more than others; disentangling feats from ASI levels creates a difficult to resolve mess as a result, when multi-classing is considered (and even when it isn't, for fighters and rogues, etc.); not only for the differing scales, but also for the knock-on effect that has in regards to the by-level feeling of gain and accomplishment. In the current system, it's set up so that you get something nice each level, but that you never get drowned by too many things at once - disentangling feats and ASIs breaks this in a number of ways, and while it could potentially be resolved in terms of balance, the feel of general class progression would end up feeling distinctly lop-sided in other areas, almost no matter what you do.

Feats are meant to be strong and interesting, and they're meant to be a viable substitution for a full ASI. In the early design days, this was done with a strong thought towards the new bounded accuracy philosophy that was being put into the core of the system; branching out and doing interesting or different things was intended to be made more appealing and more valuable by virtue of the the fact that your core ability score bounding was not as swingy as in previous editions. They were intended, at least in terms of the combat-centric ones, to add versatility more than they added direct power, because that versatility was, in itself, powerful in the new system. At least, that was the philosophy. Power creep being what it is in the present day, I could not fault people for shrugging and saying that being able to overload on feats as well as still capping your ability scores was fine. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

None of this is intended to really argue for or against anything or anyone, it's just some food for thought to add to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Tuco
This would also reduce the CRAVING NEED for rolling stats that many feel, incidentally.

All else aside, Tuco, no... it really wouldn't. Not for me, at least, and I suspect not for others who also wish for it. We're on opposite sides of the spectrum here in terms of what we want (and that's fine ^.^), but I can say very certainly that my view of the essential need for the ability to roll our stats has nothing to do with, and remains completely unaffected by, how many or how few feats we have access to and whether or not they remain tied to the ASI core system. Do you recall the various reasons that were brought up by myself and others that were eager for the ability to roll and/or set stats, in previous discussions? Most weren't to do with having power or room for feats at all.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
Originally Posted by Niara
All else aside, Tuco, no... it really wouldn't. Not for me, at least, and I suspect not for others who also wish for it.
It wouldn't for you because simply NOTHING would.
But the point is that a system of this kind would be more generous with GUARANTEED stat points ("Ability points") while also leaving room to be creative with feats. And, UNLIKE a roll system, it would maintain a resemblance of balance and fairness among all characters.

And I assure you that the appeal/benefit of rolling for stats isn't lost to me: it's convenient to a lot of players because it gives access to an insane amount of stat points for basically free. Especially without any restriction in place and/or a GM supervising the process.

That aside, the one about stat rolling was little more than a little footnote, not really the core point of my post.

Last edited by Tuco; 01/03/22 01:24 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Sure something would: being able to roll or set my ability scores would most definitely satiate my craving need to be able to roll or set my ability scores. Naturally, something that is NOT that thing would, consequently, NOT satisfy that desire... no surprises there.

If the core of your point was, back on topic, about disentangling ASIs from feats... did you have any thoughts on the extra considerations I mentioned?

Quote
And, UNLIKE a roll system, it would maintain a resemblance of balance and fairness among all characters.

Rolling for ability scores, and whether your ASI levels and feats share real estate are two completely different topics that are almost entirely unrelated to one another... I feel as though you're letting your venom for one bleed into your discussion of the other. Even then, no, it would not maintain a semblance of balance and fairness amongst all characters - I outlined the basics of why it would not, just above. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on a solution to the problems I highlighted might be though.

Spoilering the rest since it's becoming a tangent:



If something was provided that answered the reasons why I want to be able to roll ors et my scores in character creation, but was not that, then that would satisfy me too; if something which was not rolling for stats or being able to set them in character creation nevertheless answered and satisfied my stated reasons for wanting to be able to do so, I'd be quite happy with that solution, whatever it was. I'm open to suggestions if you have any. I'm actually interested to hear any suggestions you might have on that score, since it would be a chance for you to demonstrate that you actually do understand why I want to be able to roll or set my scores; we had a long discussion about it in another thread where I went into the reasons why I wanted to be able to do this, along with others who also felt similarly (and a goodly number who were against it, or didn't care too - there was a good spread of folks on all sides in that one).

Originally Posted by Tuco
And I assure you that the appeal/benefit of rolling for stats isn't lost to me: it's convenient to a lot of players because it gives access to an insane amount of stat points for basically free. Especially without any restriction in place and/or a GM supervising the process.

The thing is that, at the moment it comes off very much as though it is lost on you. I say this not to insult or to snark (Genuinely, I do not want this to come off in a combative way, and I don't intend it as such), but because I just literally said that it wasn't about power, or getting more stuff, and I reminded you of the previous discussion about this that also, as described by those who wanted it, was not about having more power, or getting more things... and you've turned around and said that you understand that it's about having more power and stuff. So, yes, it really does look like you've missed it and it's lost on you, at lest in the context of this exchange right now... It's not about having more points, and it's not about having more feats, and it's not about being more powerful than other players. That is not the reason that I, or most who advocate for it, want to be able to roll or set their ability scores. It's simply not. Please accept that as told to you by one who is advocating it; that is not the reason, or even a consideration at all.

Last edited by Niara; 01/03/22 03:18 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
I'm not against re-separating feats from ASI marks, however it's not as simple as some folks initially assume; in the current 5e structure, ASIs aren't tied to character level, but to class level, and some classes get more than others; disentangling feats from ASI levels creates a difficult to resolve mess as a result, when multi-classing is considered [...]

Feats are meant to be strong and interesting, and they're meant to be a viable substitution for a full ASI. In the early design days, this was done with a strong thought towards the new bounded accuracy philosophy that was being put into the core of the system; branching out and doing interesting or different things was intended to be made more appealing and more valuable by virtue of the the fact that your core ability score bounding was not as swingy as in previous editions. They were intended, at least in terms of the combat-centric ones, to add versatility more than they added direct power, because that versatility was, in itself, powerful in the new system. [...]

None of this is intended to really argue for or against anything or anyone, it's just some food for thought to add to the discussion.
All true, which is why it'd require an overhaul of the feat system instead of just giving every character both a feats and an ASIs at every current ASI level (or alternating).

Imo ASI/feats are tied to class level largely because of fighters; since the default fighter is a fairly empty class they need those ASIs - in particular feats - to have identity, power, and versatility. This would be partially fixed if ASIs were tied to character level but feats tied to class level. Mutliclassed characters would then get ASIs at the same time they get other class features, but that's fine (adding 2 stat points is a simple endeavor). And feats could remain tied to class levels, so that fighters & rogues get them at their dedicated feat-emphasized levels.

Feats would almost certainly have to be reworked. Aside from the fact that the current feats vary wildly in power (GWM/Mobile/War Caster/Observant/Lucky vs Athlete/Linguist/Weapon Master/Second Chance), I agree with @Tuco that these separated-from-ASIs feats should be revamped to not include ASIs. Balance-wise, feats could be equivalent to one ability point: a simple fix could be to remove the "+1 ASI" from all the feats that have that and then split the bigger feats in 2. E.g., Polearm Master would turn into one feat giving the BA attack and another giving the opportunity attack.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Oct 2020
A free feat from the start? Seems like a suggestion a millennial would do.., too impatient to progress slowly, must have everything from the get go. This will hurt the feel of progression a lot and also imbalance encounters are characters are too powerful.

The feats/ASI are supposed to be a tough choice. With your sugegestion everyone gets everything. I take feats quite often, but even those who don't, it's not really an argument because the full game is not out yet. You might take ASI at lvl 4 but at lvl 8 you probably want a feat as that stat increase will give diminishing returns compared to a feat the higher level you are.

If you really want this suggestion come true, you can get a mod for it and let everyone else play the game as it's intended.

ASI are preferred choices now mostly because the companion stats are so badly distributed that they are in dire need of ASI.

Last edited by Cantila; 01/03/22 07:16 PM.
Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Cantila
A free feat from the start? Seems like a suggestion a millennial would do

...?

Holy cow, that was fast.

Joined: Jun 2021
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Jun 2021
Longtime tabletop D&D player here. It depends on the personality and player-type that you are with but most DMs i’ve played under prioritize things like story, pacing and having fun over slavishly following any rule books. At least all of the great DMs in my opinion operate this way. It even says so in all the DM books.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
OP Online Embarrased
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Cantila
You might take ASI at lvl 4 but at lvl 8 you probably want a feat as that stat increase will give diminishing returns compared to a feat the higher level you are.
And we probably will when the game will be out properly ...

Now we are talking about testing purposes ... you know, the think Early Acess is (at least officialy) ment for? laugh

Thats why i dont even think we can talk about any kind of "progression" since there isnt any. laugh
You kill whole tutorial > level 2 ... you kill Intellect devourers > level 3 ... 2 more combats ... and whole "progresion" is done. laugh

Basicaly we allready wasted year and half of potential testing for something we had the whole time, bcs we simply didnt have statistic to even think about it. :-/
If i didnt watch Wolfheart video, where he was talking SPECIFICALY about feats ... i would not even know that Great Weapon Mastery curently dont even work. :-/

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 01/03/22 04:27 PM.

Vive et vivant. wink
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5