Unearthed Arcana UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?

[Li Shenron]

Alternately, you could separate access to combat and noncombat feats.

This kind of ideas is always around, but it's good to keep in mind that siloing helps to keep the balance but kills the fun for every players who wants to shift towards a particular area of the game, or in this case towards combat VS towards something else.

By separating feats, you force everyone to take a combat feat when some think they have enough and want something else, and later you force everyone to take a non-combat feat while someone is really waiting for a combat boost.

 

[BlivetWidget]

This kind of ideas is always around, but it's good to keep in mind that siloing helps to keep the balance but kills the fun for every players who wants to shift towards a particular area of the game, or in this case towards combat VS towards something else.

By separating feats, you force everyone to take a combat feat when some think they have enough and want something else, and later you force everyone to take a non-combat feat while someone is really waiting for a combat boost.

I don't think this is a real problem. You already have to take combat and non-combat features, and it's not ruining anybody's fun. Backgrounds are essentially collections of utility feats, and classes/subclasses contain both combat and utility features that kick in at various levels. All that's being suggested is giving players more choice in how to grow their characters, rather than it being an "omnibus bill" where they have to compromise by choosing a background/class/subclass that develops on rails.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think this is a real problem. You already have to take combat and non-combat features, and it's not ruining anybody's fun. Backgrounds are essentially collections of utility feats, and classes/subclasses contain both combat and utility features that kick in at various levels. All that's being suggested is giving players more choice in how to grow their characters, rather than it being an "omnibus bill" where they have to compromise by choosing a background/class/subclass that develops on rails.

The other issue is that if you have one player who wants to focus on combat feats, the others are kind of dragged along unless they're cool with being overshadowed. Siloing would prevent that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In my campaign I told the player they can use multiclassing, or feats, but not both on the same character. I may have to allow this UA in to allow for some edge character concepts.

 

[MoonSong]

The other issue is that if you have one player who wants to focus on combat feats, the others are kind of dragged along unless they're cool with being overshadowed. Siloing would prevent that.

I played that game and didn't find it fun. Siloing means every single character has to be a killing machine characterization be damned. Right now I can choose all non-combat spells and feats for my sorcerer and have fun and contribute with the mandatory combat improvements -and IMO they are already a bit much as it is and a bit more than I'd want-. There's no place for me in a game like what you ask-

 

[Micah Sweet]

I played that game and didn't find it fun. Siloing means every single character has to be a killing machine characterization be damned. Right now I can choose all non-combat spells and feats for my sorcerer and have fun and contribute with the mandatory combat improvements -and IMO they are already a bit much as it is and a bit more than I'd want-. There's no place for me in a game like what you ask-

I understand, but it doesn't alleviate the issue I mentioned. If combat and noncombat come from the same pool, people with different character ideas are going to be in conflict when one is superior to the other in the arena of the time. It can happen just as much with the combat guy getting sidelined during the talky bits. And there will be a pull to get in line with the combat guy or risk becoming their cheerleader squad. I know players who like that, but there shouldn't be pressure to make it so.

 

[BlivetWidget]

I played that game and didn't find it fun. Siloing means every single character has to be a killing machine characterization be damned. Right now I can choose all non-combat spells and feats for my sorcerer and have fun and contribute with the mandatory combat improvements -and IMO they are already a bit much as it is and a bit more than I'd want-. There's no place for me in a game like what you ask-

I think you misread what @Micah Sweet wrote. They suggested siloing the feats, not the characters. Then, characters pull from various feat pools at the appropriate levels and therefore have to develop both in AND out of combat instead of being able to focus on only one dimension.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I played that game and didn't find it fun. Siloing means every single character has to be a killing machine characterization be damned. Right now I can choose all non-combat spells and feats for my sorcerer and have fun and contribute with the mandatory combat improvements -and IMO they are already a bit much as it is and a bit more than I'd want-. There's no place for me in a game like what you ask-

Not to yuck your yum, but if you don't want your character to get better at combat, then D&D is not ideal for you. There are other games that do a much better job of allowing players to truly specialize, and not have to improve in character aspects that don't interest them.

But D&D --which has always tied many character aspects to class and level-- is not one of them.

That said... I've never heard a player complain "uh, I leveled up and my attack bonus is higher now. I just wanted to get better at skills, not attacking." So I think your complaint might be a bit fringe.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think this is a real problem. You already have to take combat and non-combat features, and it's not ruining anybody's fun.

Just because you are already forced to take some, it doesn't make it a go idea to take even more.

Our Fighter and Rogue always wanted to get combat stuff in earlier levels. After a while, they felt they had enough and started looking for new stuff to do between combats. If they had been forced to take more out-of-combat stuff early and more combat stuff later, they would have been unsatisfied twice alone the way, even if the end result might be similar. More choices, the better.

If combat and noncombat come from the same pool, people with different character ideas are going to be in conflict when one is superior to the other in the arena of the time. It can happen just as much with the combat guy getting sidelined during the talky bits. And there will be a pull to get in line with the combat guy or risk becoming their cheerleader squad. I know players who like that, but there shouldn't be pressure to make it so.

Pressure to the opposite is much worse. I hate forcing or being forced into "talky bits" (or whatever else) just from the sake of balance. There are lots of players who aren't interested in whole areas of the game, forcing them to pick abilities for those areas is forcing them to use them.

Words like "superior", "arena" and "conflict" already denote a much more competitive approach to the game than I want. There's no conflict if I am the one who chooses to not get all the max combat boost, or be sidelined in other cases.

And I wonder how "people with different character ideas" can be welcome at all in a game where all areas are siloed.

I think you misread what @Micah Sweet wrote. They suggested siloing the feats, not the characters. Then, characters pull from various feat pools at the appropriate levels and therefore have to develop both in AND out of combat instead of being able to focus on only one dimension.

Pretty much what I hate.

There is no opt-out from such system. On the other hand, if multiple dimensions are pooled together, you can still decide to develop all of them equally if you want.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not to yuck your yum, but if you don't want your character to get better at combat, then D&D is not ideal for you. There are other games that do a much better job of allowing players to truly specialize, and not have to improve in character aspects that don't interest them.

But D&D --which has always tied many character aspects to class and level-- is not one of them.

That said... I've never heard a player complain "uh, I leveled up and my attack bonus is higher now. I just wanted to get better at skills, not attacking." So I think your complaint might be a bit fringe.

Nobody is advocating for a zero-combat character concept. We're advocating against a fixed amount of capabilities in each pillar/area.

And D&D has always been like that because the distinction starts from classes. There has always been a Fighter more inclined to combat than everyone else, and spellcasters with out of combat spells, and then a Thief who focuses on exploration. Not even 4e managed to get rid of that.