One way I've dealt with the power creep, is to let my low level players have a brush with a far to powerful enemy, then reverse the situation later. This gives them a benchmark. Finally defeating the powerful creature at a higher level also creates a sense of accomplishment. Mopping the floor with an enemy they had some difficulty with a few levels earlier creates a sence of power.
One of the most important things you can do add a DM is to let your PC's go back to that small city quarter/ village and feel the "This was hard when we started. " My group cleaning up some loose ends killed off an strong bandit presence like it was nothing. Because at their level, it was. My players were laughing, joking, smiling the whole time. Worth every second.
I understand the vertical vs horizontal scaling but I don't see how it particularly relates to feats. I believe you would have the same exact problems in a game without feats, the rogue would face the same problem unless they took an strength ASI and they won't do that only to get a +1 on some saves and skill. The only real problem mentioned about feats is how when a player makes a somewhat specialized build they end up doing the same thing in most combats, which is true, but it is also the thing that allows a non spellcaster dnd character to become more powerful than they were at levvel 1 relative to an encounter of their level.
This guy knows what he’s talking about, I don’t see any real way thatfeats negatively impact a character, especially in fifth edition, where I feel like feats got a huge bonus. I think it’s a great way to give any character a way to differentiate themselves or add a unique flavor that can speak a lot about their character I like the idea of a rogue who has been training with the parties fighter every night and now they have, a couple battle master maneuvers things to feet
It’s not really clear until you see it. The feat allows you to function at a higher level than you should. If your Paladin is able to kill the hill giant with a single blow because of some peculiar feat tree at 5th, then you will be facing hill giants at 5th. Except his AC and HP are fifth level, not 8-9th, and the overall difficulty of the encounter is too hard if his feat doesn’t come into play because he rolls poorly all night. Rather than going to work to earn his salary as a Paladin, he’s buying lottery tickets and praying that he can pay the rent with the winnings.
@@Xplora213 i don't think that is the problem he was talking about in the video, but I agree, feats that are not situational and straight up increase the power level of your character make the game harder to balance.
@@cerocero2817 The issue I have is that you become supreme in some circumstances but not enough to justify the danger that you now face. It’s kind of like an old 2e Arrow of Dragon Slaying. You go from this walking shish kebab waiting to die at the hands of the dragon to this insane death machine… as long as you can use the arrow. These peculiar situations can really disrupt the game. Not just imbalance it. I have a poor 4th level cleric who is achieving nothing while he watches the warhammer specialist dual wielding 3rd level fighter go absolutely nuts on the goblins. 5 superior attacks to 2 crappy ones every two rounds. Low level cleric doesn’t have much else to do except thump people. It makes for a bad GAME. so much so that I will not allow weapon specialisation until 6th level in future. It just breaks the game. Maybe no magic weapons can be dual wielded either unless it’s a pair. Feats are the same thing, but different. We create this distorted image of the characters. BUT… in fairness, I think I am no longer in favour of the 5e concept. Create your character in 5 minutes. Maybe level 0, or perhaps create an alternative level system.
A month late, but I recently discovered your channel. While in general, I have found your videos insightful, in this one, I feel your thesis is flawed. 1. You are assuming only the player gets better at something. Your example of the rogue vs the wolf assumes you wouldn't fight opponents that got better themselves (Yes, I'm aware the wolf didn't get better, but it's, in fact, a larger wolf). To use a real-world example, if you practice martial arts, after a few years, you could go back and beat up beginners; you don't. You fight people who have also "levelled up", and they may, in fact, have specialized. Most martial arts favor particular types of attacks, and there are other styles that in many ways counter another style. It is entirely plausible that while one person avoided trips, another opponent got even better at finding openings to deliver trip attacks. 2. D&D is normally played with multiple players aside from the DM; it's an ensemble cast. A musician joining an orchestra doesn't try to get good at all instruments; they pick on and excel. Certain individuals can play multiple instruments at a high level, but the virtuoso vocalist, cellist, and horn player are rare. Heist movies are also Ensemble casts; if the grifter is also the best hacker and explosives expert, it makes for a poor cast. You specialize because your opponent also specialises, and to better deal with their specialization, you focus your talents. By the time you hit mid-levels, this group of ragtag caravan guards has turned into a well oiled special forces team that has tried true tactics. Granted, it does become boring doing the same thing repeatedly, and it wears on the DM to come up with situations that force players to adapt - wrap it up and start a new campaign.
Hm, I feel like I have a different understanding of the thesis or of the underlying assumptions. I'll try to be short: 1. It seems to me that there is a difference in assumption: to me, it seems like usually, higher-level monsters do not specialize as much as they just become stronger (like the wolf), which is on purpose, since otherwise they would become increasingly difficult to run for a DM. To me, one problem is that this does not match: the rogue got better at stabbing, but the wolf is just bigger and better. 2. I'm not sure how this is in contrast to the thesis of the video.
@@FridgeEating The video goes over the differences between Vertical Scaling, broadly getting better at what a character already specializes in, and Horizontal Scaling, adding options to deal with problems you're not already equipped with. I think it's fair to say the case in this video is that Horizontal scaling is preferable to Vertical. I don't know that he necessarily thinks it's terrible, but there is a definite preference. If the rogue got better at stabbing but wasn't focused on hand-to-hand (trips), why wouldn't a bigger, better wolf have a better chance of tripping them? Diversifying your abilities rather than specializing is that you can overcome all challenges. But you are not alone. If you can solve the door riddle, defeat the platform trap, counter the abilities of the death monks and cleans the undead in the temple, what is the point of the other characters? You could all be generalists, true, and you're all equally OK at everything. But is a party where each individual member has an answer for practically every situation available exciting? Many of the examples in the videos are presented as though only A or B can be true. These Traps got more problematic for us to overcome, so we are a weaker party (1:50). No, you're not. You'd be better able to handle the kobold warren you cleared out at level 1, but this is Lich's sepulchre. The Lich is much more intelligent than the kobolds. It is possible that both the characters are stronger and the dangers more challenging. He also points out that as you level you're not relevant abilities remain fixed. The wizard with 10 strength at level 1 has 10 strength at level 15. Sure, why is that a problem? Where is the fighter/barbarian/paladin? If you chose to play without these classes, that's fine, but you should definitely start thinking about how you're going to deal with a portcullis that's closed from the other side (by all means, mage hand through and pull the lever, or try to snag it with a grappling hook) Vertical scaling isn't bad, neither is Horizontal. Horizontal allow for clever gameplay, using bizarre wonderous items in ways that a DM never anticipated. But Vertical scaling allows characters to feel like they've grown stronger, better at their chosen profession/role. I am now the experienced Cleric, full in my god's power, able to bring down righteous light that even the strongest Vampire fears. No longer the insecure novice that had only just begun their journey into understanding the ideals and teachings of the faith. But yeah, I still have trouble opening the occasional pickle jar.
@@tthrack1432 Agreed. The thesis of this video seemed to say that specializing is a trap...I mean if you specialize into protecting the party by being the beefiest and most attention drawing tank ever then how is that a trap? If I learn to hit harder then the rest of the party why is that a trap? Someone needs to specialize into plumber eventually to take care of those terrible issues. Especially since, as someone else in the comments mentioned, there is an entire book dedicated to foes that will harm the party in combat, so having people specialized in taking them down may not be a trap.
A wolf and a dire wolf are two separate creatures with different stats and one is stronger than the other. The problem you're pointing out isn't a problem with feats, but one with a level based system. The monsters become harder to provide more of a challenge. If the 1st level rouge fights a dire wolf the % of trip is the same. As characters gain in level they of course become more specialized in their chosen paths making them less effective in areas they are less specialized in. These situations are easily managed at the table with good players and DM's.
This sounds more like a discussion of multi-classing than about Feats, and for the same reasons. Feats tend to be tied to character generation methods. For instance, standard array and point buy focus a little more on ability increases, whereas dice generation becomes a playground for Feats. Even in that situation, it's hit an miss, because poor results from stat generation tend to favor ability increases (at least among wise players) and Feats appear when the dice-generated stats are better. The choice of Feat can also make a wide difference. If you're a Fight, as above, and take Tough, you will increase hit points in a predictable way, but a Wizard with Tough surprises many foes with their resilience. A Rogue whom selects Elemental Adept to boost damage potential with their Flame Tongue will see marginal increases, but a Draconic Sorcerer with Elemental Adept has boosted likely 80% of their spells. I've seen players demand to have Resilient because they think it will make their characters stronger, without realizing that a correct Stat increase will also improve saves while also buffing skills, and possibly combat. If, let's say, that Rogue instead took Magic Adept or Ritual Caster, they might be able to gain Find Familiar and thus ALWAYS have an ally within 5' of their Sneak Attack target, thus spamming a core class feature. It's the "lure" of a potential boost that many see, but never really think through. Like any character concept, it takes a little insight into what a player character will BECOME, more than what they can get NOW.
With regards to resilient: it was pointed out to me by my rules lawyer friends that unless the feat says so you may only take it once. The line in the beginning of the feats section PHB is “You can take each feat only once, unless the feat’s description says otherwise.”. I was unaware with one of my first 5E characters in a homebrew. So if they want it I would let them take it, but just choose one. You can’t be proficient in every save.
I sometimes look for this kind of feat if one of my primary stats is sitting on an odd number. This is something else that can happen more with point buy than with rolled stats, especially if you want no other score below a 10.
Still fairly new to DMing but doing it anyways. During my brother’s character creation I started off very confused by how feats work, how players get them (half looking through the book and using the free content on dnd beyond) but once I figured it out we ended up using them in a similar way to what you described for the player with some school experience. He’s playing a Goliath sorcerer that was raised by gnomes, and was given his magic by a silver dragon that rescued him as a baby. This explaining him being a sorcerer of the draconic bloodline felt alright but I really wanted to lean into the whole protection blessing thing so gave him the option (like an expansion on the optional feats rule) to trade two of his stat points to start with the “gift of the metallic dragon” from fizban’s. This did a couple things for me Made my brother feel more excited about his character and gives the party an extra healing spell once a day so I don’t accidentally kill them lol
The intended drawback of feats as a variant rule (that everyone I've met uses) is that it gives up the horizontal bonus of an Ability Score Increase (which can apply to multiple spellcasting, attack rolls, skill checks, or armor class all at once) for a bonus to the playstyle that you want to play. As both a DM and a player, the issues come up in two ways. A player invests too much either horizontal (usually this is in part due to Multiple Ability Dependency) or vertical (taking a trap option like Charger which is situational at the best of times) that they lose some of what their class is supposed to be good at. Or, the DM puts the players (usually higher level) up against a skill challenge, and in their haste to have the game have challenge, forget that a 10 total for a skill check on a nat 1 is still competent; robbing the character from feeling like their investments mattered. Unfortunately, the first issue when you're a player really only has one answer: ask your DM if the two of you can homebrew a fix, retcon, or magic item that helps you do what you thought you would be doing. The second issue however is surprisingly easy when said out loud: you can have the PCs steamroll things that they're good at and have trouble with the challenging stuff (that may or may not be boosted past Rules As Written, I won't tell ;^)
What vertical scaling does is change the scope of the fight. It's disingenuous to say that the 5th level rogue is weaker then the first because his 40% chance to not get tripped by the dire wolf is smaller then the 1st level level rogue's 50% to not get tripped by a bog standard forest doggo. you're comparing apples to dire apples after all. Does the standard wolf get somehow better at tripping the 5th level rogue? no. This isn't Final Fantasy 8 where the tabby cat sized mosquitos near Balamb Garden will level alongside you. By level 5 a rogue should probably be dancing circles and making a quick pelt of those bog standard wolves should they bump into them. The rogue is getting better at the fundamentals of rogue-ing... that's what vertical power scaling showcases. it's just the encounters worth talking about, their scope changes. If a dire wolf is nothing but a wolf with a bigger numbers, that's not a problem of vertical power scaling, but probably one of bad enemy and/or encounter design if it's supposed to actually pose and interesting combat choice. yes some monsters need to be simple fodder to fill out a fight or act as pawns for the actual interesting "boss". wolf mooks who distract and trip the less mobile PCs while the dire wolf drags off a weaker PC into a solo one-on-one off screen, or use hit-and run tactics due to their higher speed to land a few hits and then run off under the command of the big dire wolf? Give that big boy some leadership abilities to make it interesting. But usually just tossing a bunch of vanilla mooks at players, especially if the encounter location doesn't have an interesting gimmick or twist, doesn't make for a fun or engaging fight. In short i'm saying D&D needs better designed monsters and tips on better designing encounters. But some saves or stats getting "worse" as time goes on because the player neglects them isn't a problem of vertical power scaling, but one VERY specific to D&D 5e and, IMO, it's stat/proficiency progression that isn't really conductive to a 20 level vertical power system mixed in with the swingy randomness of the d20. That's not to say that we need only vertical power scaling, some horizontal scaling is also very much appreciated. Being able to approach different situations without always treating it as a nail that needs driving using the same class-given hammer you've been using for the past 7 levels gives it a breath of fresh air. I'll also play devil's advocate and say that the dire wolf's better trip chance isn't bad game design. As a level 5 rogue you've had 4 levels of gameplay where you got time to learn your weaknesses and should be planning while keeping them in mind. Yeah, you're prone to getting tripped. So what do you do in situations where you encounter a monster or enemy who's good at tripping you? a player of an adventurer, someone who's job description is "run towards the scary fanged beast", should be aware of their weaknesses and plan accordingly. If they fail to do so and get caught by the dire wolf and tripped that's on them. sorry for being rambly. Some of the scaling issues, like a rogue being more vulnerable to tripping as they progress in levels, IMO, is by design and they should be planning how they engage enemies knowing these weaknesses. Dire wolves being just Forest Wolves+++ is bad monster design if the Dire wolf is supposed to be an important monster and not just a speedbump. Getting "worse" at a thing as the level and difficulty of the game progresses is not necessarily bad design if by design it means you should be taking stock of what you can and cannot do and adjusting your plans accordingly.
" .. sorry for being rambly. " Your post was broken into paragraphs covering statement point very nicely and it was easy and enjoyable to read. My past gaming groups at gamer shops during 3rdE just made a choice of giving basic animals character class levels. Any common class farm just by clearing out giant or large size vermin of rats and insects could reach 7th-level single class common within five years. So we played off 7th-level sorcerers and druids as 20 to 24 year olds not realizing they were spell casters. They though Plant Growth was just hard work and normal prayer getting the job done. Many 1st and 2nd level spells could just be pass off as a once or twice per day athletic adrenaline boost of speed or strength. Along with the Shield spell granting a luck bonus to parry or dodge. A five to seven year old alpha wolf was written as fighter2/rogue3/ranger2. CR:7+ Ranger favorite enemy bonus goes to something silly like catching rabbits, ducks, or fish and sometimes deer with its +1 bonus. Rgoue3 flanking/ stealth attack gives them a +2 attack and 2d6 bonus bite dmg to trip attacks on knee bites. The two bonus fighter feats vary on the wolf temperament and roll in the pack structure. Alpha have Power Attack and Take Down, first in is first kicked. Scouts pick up on game and dangers. I grew up with dogs and coyotes, from shepherds to great Danes, dogs love to run up from behind and should bump your knee joint to do trip attacks. Never train a great Dane to play football. Humans tackle speed is between 12mph to 20 mph, Danes cruise at 30 to 40 mph and bump hit your hip hard at higher speeds than what humans travel at. As for pack coyotes having a little bloody hunting war with raccoons in corn fields around grain harvest time. A coyote will draw you from your camp site for the rest to trash and raid your camp or steal bath towels drying on the clothes line for bedding. Bob cats would just crawl into the clothes basket and go belly up in the hot summer sun to lay in a cool damp soft location for a few minutes of hours. A problem I learn over the years dealing with people and those who played too many video games, predators don't fight to the death nor do they take any undue risks in hunting prey/food. If something puts up to much of a fight and can cause injury they will pull back and find easier safer prey. So dire wolves will just avoid humans after they been shot or seen others of their pack get shoot. Worgs being neutral evil on the other hand will stalk an adventurer party for days howling to drive up panic and sleep deprivation for a stealth attack. For added combat advantage or fear effect I roll to give a worg a level of two of sorcerer so they could make use of True Strike or Scare along with a few other spells to function as daily one time spell effect abilities. Last thing comparing a 1st-level rogue to a 5th level ones to avoid being trip by a wolf/dog. People train to fight against humans/oids and not against dogs/wolves.
A major problem I see with D&D and Pathfinder is the massive, massive discrepancy that a few level gains bring in terms of character power. It is very, very hard to keep immersion and confront your party with problems on par with their abilities. A gang of bandits is a threat early, but laughable 5 levels later - yet it is unreasonable, to scale up those threats, since the rest of the world didn't gain power in the same way. A threat on par with bandits, but scaled to level 10 characters would be a national emergency in the kingdom.
@@Der_Thrombozyt the rest of the world might not have gained power, but there's no reason individuals in it can't. Why wouldn't a bandit get better at their job? The power level isn't linear, but it's not hard to work within if you don't limit yourself. Maybe there are more bandits now. 6d6 damage is just as effective coming from 6 low-level baddies as one higher level. Think about how bad guys try to stop heroes in other mediums...is a bandit going to stop Superman? No. Could a really smart villain start passing out kryptonite like candy to the criminal underworld? Sure...well now the little punk robbing a gas station is actually a deadly encounter. There's a reason "your power is limited only by your imagination" is a cliche...we say it a lot because it's true...
@@b0xf0x13 I have no problem creating encounters, that are challenging. But bandits that are powerful enough to thwart a level 10 party are such a huge deal in terms of threat to the rest of the world, that you cannot simply sprinkle them in as an encounter like you would normal bandits. "Dire bandits" would shut down a trade route entirely and prompt major political and military reaction totally out of proportion. The villain that challenges superman has ramifications for the world on a totally different scale than the robber that holds up a normal person. The kryptonite metaphor doesn't hold, because kryptonite basically levels down superman - something you can't really do in D&D. Oh.. on a technical point: 6d6 damage from 6 bandits won't stick, since they won't have the attack bonus to even hit them and each player turn the damage would be cut in half, when a lvl10 fighter slays 3 in one go, whereas the "dire bandit" maintains his full damage until he drops and is harder to hit.
The wolf example is extremely bad and way below your usual standards for content on this channel. The rogue has enhanced mobility tools at level 2 and then possibly 3 and 4 that allow them to avoid the possibility of being hit by the dire wolf to begin with, meaning that a rogue fighting some dire wolves with cunning action dash and disengage can just... not get hit. They're melee monsters with 50 speed. Wolves are fast, but a rogue can be faster without having to even use their action to dash. Additionally, the level 5 rogue has several times more health than the low level rogue, likely has a superior armor class, and their cunning action even makes being prone less of a problem by still letting them keep most of their mobility after standing up. And this doesn't factor in party members who can usually boost saves, do battlefield control, make enemies target people other than the rogue, or cast fireball and just kill all the wolves. And if the rogue waits until level 6, that paladin over there is going to give them a massive aura bonus. Put together, the level 5 rogue is far less concerned with falling prone than a low level character from a strength saving throw and it's clear very little thought went into this pivotal example. When you just look at "do they have strength save proficiency or not" and then conclude that they get worse at strength saves against going prone as they level up, that's not the whole story. They have different tools now, their playstyle has evolved, and who knows, maybe their bonus is higher now thanks to their friends. also this is just a bit of a tangent, but always cast fog cloud when the wolves arrive to nullify their pack tactics, that's how you solve the patented Wolf Puzzle™
Hey! Good points, and if you framed them as constructive criticism, an opening for discussion, or just disagreeing, this world be a great comment. But between "extremely bad," your comments about the standard of the channel, and your ridiculous assertion that "very little thought" went into this, you seem rude, entitled and a bit cartoonishly outraged. If you want ppl to listen to what you have to say, or participate in discussion with you, it might be helpful to treat them with dignity and respect, esp when they're making free and excellent content.
This is actually my fave part of pathfinder 2e; very few feats choices actually vertically scale your character, they mostly just give you new cool things you can do
How does the 5th level Rogue compare to the same wolf as his 1st level version did? By switching the opponent, even one that fills the same niche, you're now making a completely different comparison. In this case, you are comparing a larger, heavier beast to the character, instead of the smaller, lighter version from earlier in his career. Scaling has always been a tricky balance in level-based games. On one hand, there needs to be a challenge or the game gets boring. On the other hand, the higher the level, the more likely suspension of disbelief starts to wear thin and the meta-mechanical underpinnings become more apparent.
The main problem I have with feats - and I'm saying this as someone who started at the super crunchy 3e and stopped at 3.5e - is that they lead to 'metagame' behavior among many players, especially those used to min-maxing in video games. I mean, when players start talking about their 'builds' and 'optimizing damage' and brag-posting their awesome 'so-and-so monk' on Reddit, are we playing TTRPGs anymore or are we playing some kind of hack & slash game in which we just want to see the DPS go up? Not all feats are about combat and damage, of course, I'm just using this as an example to illustrate this 'card-game combo' mentality. I like the idea of the 'horizontally' scaling feats, which are less specific and actually tied to the game world. These remind me a lot of the 'groups' concept from Whitehack.
I totally agree with you. However don't you think that DnD itself as a system encourages this kind of mentality? I mean, most of the content is about fighting, like most class features and so on. One of the three main books is entirely dedicated to monsters to fight against. Although 5e likes to keep the rules light, it's still built with a style of play in mind, which is adventuring, fighting and fighting again until there's nothing left to defeat or the resources are scarse. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't an actual issue, but more of a design choice. Designers of DnD want players to have fun metagaming, minmaxing, and trying to break the game. Imho the issue here is that most us roleplayers treat DnD for what it's not instead of playing other TTRPGs, because for different reasons most of the time it is one of the few, if not the only TTRPG we actually get to play
@@nicholas1630 WotC D&D is IMO designed to be played by people who don't actually play D&D. It is designed to be played in your head as an optimization puzzle or a hypothetical situation you post on a forum. Much in the same way that most magic is about metagaming and card chasing. I think the disconnect is that TSR D&D wasn't that way, so people who grew up on pre-WotC D&D just see WotC D&D as deeply misguided. That being said, the Strixhaven and Wild Beyond the Witchlight stuff is at least showing them realizing that maybe there is a better approach that isn't about number-crunch DPR murder-hoboism calculations. On one hand TSR wrote too many books, on the other hand TSR sold a LOT of books and nearly all the good settings came out of 1E and 2E. Something 5E is sorely lacking. This notion of not printing too many books is actually just bad business compared to having good ideas that are not just power creep and printing more books that result in more sales. There is only so much power creep you can sell before the system collapses, there is a lot of cool ideas you can sell instead.
I'd have to argue that it is simply a different way to enjoy the game and that so long as you are not actively diminishing your groups enjoyment then building for optimisation is a legitimate and well supported way to play. 4e was arguably the most balanced edition between the classes, though obviously not perfect, and part of the way it achieved that was by removing a lot of variables that could make or break a character build and players hated it for that (& other reasons I must concede). I do think that tent pole publishers of ttrpg's might want to include more guidance for fledgling players to help them have these important conversations with their groups. I see a fair amount of DM advice and horror stories that could be resolved by actually speaking to people. I like to try an optimise my characters, not because from a desire to "win D&D" but more for my own insecurities. I don't want to be a burden to my group nor do I wish to steal the limelight, if I can play my role keeping the newer players alive then they can have more opportunities to have fun and shine. My min-maxing may lead me to upset the other members of my group which is something I am mindful of; however, by specialising I have reduced my impact in their characters arena's. If I'd built a do it all wizard then I would deserve their ire, in contrast I could also build a Treantmonk style god wizard to aid the party whilst still allowing me to make tactical decisions to dramatic effect.
I do like the vertical/horizontal scaling contrast and appreciate the problems pointed out with vertical scaling, but comparing a thief's chances of being tripped by a wolf and then a dire wolf at a later level isn't an apples to apples comparison. That same thief had a worse chance against that dire wolf at 1st level compared to at 5th (assuming the rogue increases DEX). So the rogue has gotten better, and I like this kind of scaling (i.e. being able to take on more dangerous threats at higher levels). But I also dislike the narrowing of focus caused by mechanics that “push” players in a certain direction.
One of the more obvious places you see the issues with vertical scaling in 5E is with saving throws. At level 1 they are relatively flat across abilities but get more and more uneven as proficiency goes up.
Last session in a high-level campaign I play in, one character died after being Feared for most of the fight with a DC of 21 and a +1 on WIS saves. Reflection on that, I realized that wizards and sorcerers get better and better at higher levels at, say, Hold Personing another wizard of equal level.
Of course this is well known, deliberate, and accounted for in monster design, class features, spells available, magic items that exist, and DM advice. Fear/frightened has many hard and soft counters, for example.
Re-watched this, as I think it is refining my thinking on RPGs. Vertical bonuses outside of a highly constricted band are a design trap and make characters worse. A 1st level fighter fighting goblins as effectively as a 10th level fighter fighting giants never got stronger, the enemies got re-skinned. If the DM was to re-skin the giants as goblins, the fighter has now become objectively weaker because the fighter is secretly on a mathematical tread-mill holding them in place in terms of their raw offensive power, while all the other treadmills for holding the stealthy or persuasive characters in place have literally done nothing other than narrow the fighter's possible vectors for solving a problem. So vertical progression means that the 10th level analog of a goblin has more effective vectors to attack a player's 10th level fighter than a 1st level goblin has to attack a 1st level fighter, all the re-skinned 10th level goblin has to do is use the stealth and persuasion scaling that is designed to keep the rogue and bard on a treadmill against the fighter instead of against the rogue or bard. It is like spell selection for wizards. Spells that do one thing are actually the weak spells. Catapult might not be mathematically optimal DPR compared to magic missile, but magic missile can't be used to fling the sacrificial dagger for the evil ritual across the room or fling a rock on the ground at the feet of a band of hobgoblins at their ogre ally while the wizard is hiding in a bush. What makes a spell powerful is the width of possible uses, as it allows the caster latitude to attack a challenge from its weakest point. Doing slightly less damage doesn't matter when the damage is only going to be used when the ability to deal damage is the weakest point of their foe, such as when the players realize that just physically beating up the scheming vizier in the middle of open court and making him confess at sword point is going to have a fallout no worse than what the scheming vizier is trying to accomplish with words, and they are WAY better at beating him up before the guards can save him than the bard is at out talking him. As the GM you should be explicitly aware that you are only making your player's characters better if you can identify how you've increased their available vectors to attack a problem, and you've reduced their characters every time you increase their mathematical bonuses in something that was already a viable vector of attacking a problem. Thus the common notions such as games of D&D should be limited to levels 1 through 6-7 isn't because D&D doesn't mathematically scale properly but because mathematical scaling itself isn't proper unless there isn't a treadmill. We can look at video games like WoW and see this understanding. Every few expansions the developers "prune" abilities under the notion that there are too many corner case abilities. This is always unpopular with the players. The reality is that MMOs have the characters on a math treadmill, where the player is always fighting a boss with health that scales with the expected damage per second of the character. The players are upset because their character's power isn't how big the numbers their hits do, it is their ability to weave in corner case abilities into the combat encounter, like skillful use of heroic leaps or using abilities to rush to the side of another player to increase the amount of time a fighter is dealing damage by decreasing the amount of time it takes them to reposition during the fight or avoid area of effects. The removal or denial of corner case abilities is the explicit weakening of a character where a treadmill exists in the design of the game. Especially in a TTPRG were if characters fall off the treadmill the GM will just slow the treadmill down, as compared to a MMORPG were the players failing a DPS check will keep re-playing the same fight like ground hog day until they get they finally meet the DPS check via gear or refining the implementation of their damage rotation.
This is now my favorite comment I've read on my channel. It's such a beautiful thing to watch a DM make this realization and become enlightened. There is no going back, once you have seen it. I strongly encourage you to read the following 3 rpgs, which are free to download, very short and easy to read, and easy enough to find with a Google: "Mausritter," "Mothership Rpg" and "Old-school Essentials" (this last one is a reskin of gygax's first edition of dnd, reorganized to actually be legible). Ask yourself not what a character can do, as you read them, but what kind of narratives the system allows you to play. If you'd like to be invited to my Patreon discord server, you have earned it, let me know what your discord handle is. I'm glad you made this realization!!!! Cheers!
On further reflection, his entire line of thinking is why 2E having an explicit notion of a morale system via a morale value in the monster stat block, and thereby an alternate path to victory in a combat besides just slaying foes to the last, is something that the removal of which I argue make characters weaker and less heroic (and something I always thought was a misstep but didn't have a precise explanation as to why). If a heavily armored fighter with more hit points due to a few levels can use those hit points to charge through the ranks of goblins to apply their single target damage from multiple weapon attacks against the goblin warlord that a first level fighter would have been able to kill toe to toe then the rules say the GM should be rolling dice to see if they break and run away when that fighter just safely killing a goblin on the front rank in an optimized manner shouldn't be causing such a roll. If the goblins don't break and run away, the fighter can tank their DPR to lop the head of the goblin warlord off and toss it into the air where the wizard can tank their DPR and have an unseen servant catch it and make it float above the battle, which the morale rules suggest would require the GM to be rolling more dice. Not because morale is inherently the most important thing to simulate, but because having multiple paths to victory is important for an RPG to allow characters to become heroic through their daring actions taken change the math to an equation that favors them instead of playing out what the odds should be on paper due to DPR calculations and optimizing their inputs to the math. Of course, I'd argue that morale is almost one of the most important things to simulate for horizontal scaling too. Morale considerations are historically consistent (and therefore likely consistent with human experience), as history is full of examples such as Thomas Cochrane consistently using psychology and unconventional tactics to win unwinnable battles on paper. Human conflict has more often as not been about circumstances and psychology than damage per unit of time. People ask why Napoleonic era soldiers fired 'inefficiently' in volley and not at will to maximize their DPS, and that is because they were not winning via DPS. They were winning via psychology. If a weapon is highly inaccurate then most of the rounds fired will deflect upwards or downwards and not into that thin line inside the cone of fire, thus an overall faster flow of incoming rounds isn't sufficient to shoot the other side off the field or make them run. However, unleash a single volley and all the rounds hitting at once is enough to test the nerve of the other side as the time ticks closer and closer to when the next volley is expected. They didn't stand in the open because they were stupid, they stood in the open because it wasn't stupid if you were looking to scatter the opposition from a range close enough to threaten to just run up and skewer them with bayonets or send in horses if they did something foolish like lay on the ground. It wasn't until the American Civil War that weapon technology made standing in the open bordering on stupid, and the winning side in that conflict wasn't stupid for engaging in that form of stupidity because they won strategically because of it, and the losing side wasn't losing with that stupidity until they made a tactical miscalculation. It wasn't until WW1 where it was beyond the pale and completely without sense. Napoleonic cavalry was such that they often essentially couldn't hurt each other after a few initial pistol shots and when cavalry would charge cavalry it was about which side had more nerve and bravado, where if neither side would break and run they would just sort of mill around and stare at each other and whop and yell until it became too awkward. IIRC the records for Waterloo showed there were not many bayonet wounds, not because bayonets were ineffective but because the prospect of being the recipient of an effective bayonet charge was enough to make people just run away from the prospect of it, which is how you win a battle and not an RTS game that ignores psychology and both sides take politically and economically unsustainable losses in a mathematically balanced manner where the winner optimizes their action economy better to grind their way to victory. It doesn't just apply to humanoid foes. Sure, if 1st level players encounter an angry owl bear that should mathematically rip them to pieces then DPR and mechanical bonuses is a trap. It is about horizontal thinking like using fire to keep it at bay and to engineer a way to deliver a single convincing poke to the face that does enough damage in a manner that makes it not want to risk the conflict and find easier prey. Player characters are supposed to be people like Thomas Cochrane The Sea Wolf, consistently winning against the odds because they consistently defy expectations (or get unlucky and randomly poked somewhere fatal like all the other would be Thomas Cochranes or PCs that didn't make it to the history books). Mathematical treadmills and 'balanced' accumulation of bonuses are expectations that promote the very sort of conformity that is antithetical to the behavior you see in real life heroic characters such as Thomas Cochrane. Of course the powers that be hated Thomas Cochrane, as those with the power are inclined to hate any demonstration that suggests the notion that upsets are possible. A place for everyone, and everyone in their place. It reminds me of the story about a tiger hunter in India that screwed up and missed their shot at the charging tiger and stood their ground and against all odds managed to skewer the charging tiger with their machete. They reloaded their gun and walked up and shot the dead tiger in the machete wound, because they couldn't have people knowing they killed tiger with their machete like a boss when they got paid to hunt tigers because they owned a gun. Edit: oh, and all of this is why notions that randomness favors the monsters and more hit points is better for the players is actually wrong and paradoxically limits the players. If players can theoretically die in one or two blows due to critical hits or just having smaller pools of hit points... it forces players to not engage in such direct contests so freely. This forces players into attacking problems via horizontal means, and when they strike against their foes via unorthodox horizontal means their foes are more vulnerable to being overwhelmed because their foes don't have the inflated hit point pools to absorb the player's offensive burst from clever planning because the game hasn't inflated hit point pools in the name of keeping the players safe from burst offense. Sorry, that dragon literally as over 500 hit points, your clever trap was cool but now you are all dead men walking because the house always wins in the long run, and 546 hit points is a long night at the casino. In the name of keeping you safe from ambushes, your ambushes will never be successful enough for you to win by ambush alone. Go grind some levels. The players are the asymmetrical belligerent, not the monsters. Playing to the numbers doesn't favor them. Everyone's hit points being low enough to be vulnerable to clever thinking is what favors them.
@@thewillandtheway6127 The last part reminds me of a post I read somewhere. The DM said, I can't stand my players, they spent all fights doing 'I will attack, it might be a critical hit'. He ended up make a system where you can't defeat monsters if you just attack, they are mathematically too powerful than you, so you have to think of one way to get the edge on them and then only does your attack stand a chance.
I actually prefer vertical to horizontal since it shows a steady form of progression to me. Vertical just tells that I can skip to the end since everything else is pointless.
@@thewillandtheway6127 Might I direct your attention to Zee Bradshaw's video on "Witchery monsters". There he outlines a framework by which you make your monsters more resistant to mundane attacks, elements, poisons, etc but also give them weaknesses your players can learn through research. So instead of a big bundle of hit points you wail on until it stops moving, now it is a puzzle they can tease apart with insight and planning.
There is a certain golden ratio in terms of breadth and focus of characters. And in my opinion, martials and casters exemplify the problems of having too little and too many options, respectively. As you said, a too linear character often has only one effective role in combat and if the actions are constrained or outright negated, the character immediately becomes useless. Conversely, other kinds of obstacles that don't interact with this linear gameplan don't affect the character at all. Casters, on the other hand, have an impossibly large number of options, and every single one of them is heavily impactful and generally requires wholly different countermeasures. Combat with characters this wildly unpredictable leaves no room for informed decision making and leads back to just using default tactics as there's nothing to really play around anymore. Besides, the vertical scaling will not stop from higher CR threats just because the Rogue stops improving their damage or defenses.
For years I've stated this problem like this: If you have a sword that deals 10 pts. of damage, and a monster with 100 hp, it will take you 10 hits to kill it. If you progress and get a sword that deals 100 damage and now have an enemy with 1000 hp, it will STILL take you exactly 10 hits to kill it. Power progression in a ttrpg is more or less a lie. In addition to the above problem, difficulty in any game is more or less arbitrary, as in the DM gets to decide (often on the fly) how "difficult" an encounter is simply by increasing/decreasing either the stats or the number of enemy. Many DM's even cheat, making the whole thing irrelevant. There's two solutions. 1) Abandon vertical progression altogether. Stop using an XP/level system. This is hard to do, because I didn't say abandon progress, I simply said abandon the level/XP system. You can still have characters progress, in power even, but now it becomes a far more complicated roleplaying progress (for example, Wizards may have to literally go and apprentice with other Wizards, and now the player has to roleplay this experience in order to learn new spells or get more powerful at spells they already know, Fighters have to go and train with warriors of renown, etc.) Done right, this can be a lot of fun, but it's also the most work. 2) Play a computer game that does all of this for you in the background.
Some games I like assume horizontal growth. Like with AGE you cannot increase two class primary attributes in a row. So you’ll end up increasing your warrior’s communication because why not. Also, each character will have at the very least 2 subclasses, not just 1, by level 12. And a similar thing happens with the game’s feat-equivalent. A character playing a fire mage can get the most powerful fire spell in the game by level 5 if they focus solely on vertically advancing their fire spells. So what happens at level 7 when they learn more spells? They have to take something. And while they might not branch out too far - maybe they go lightning or water - those paths still have access to effects that fire magic just can’t do. And they’ll have to do it again at level 13 or so. It’s not a perfect solution and the game has other problems that 5e doesn’t, but I think it does horizontal growth very well.
The verticality of feats also leads to "feat taxes" - or situations where a character build is strongly compelled to take a certain feat to support their build or else lose effectiveness, like how nearly every ranged weapon attacker in 5e takes Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert (or both) if they want to optimize even just a little bit. This leads to having fewer meaningful choices, not more of them.
I have noticed that you keep the book shelves (and their contents) in sharp focus, as well as your "info-graphic illustration" box, but yourself, yourself, you keep yourself in soft focus. If you have done this on purpose, I applaud you, as I find it very effective in shaping audience attention. If this is a happy accident, then you're welcome to share and share alike.
... Shouldn't it judge the rogue's Str Save against the SAME creature, not two different ones? *Bro?!? The Rogue didn't get worse, you merely Bait and Switch with a much stronger creature to Save against. ex dee*
That Rogue example with the wolf and the dire wolf is very bad. Why would the Rogue increase his strength mod instead of dex? And even if he did increase his strength, thats just a 5% increase so 45% chance of the Rogue falling prone. Whoop di do.
You have, perhaps unintentionally, played right into the primary thesis of this video. Your entire argument is *precisely* the problem that Dungeon Masterpiece is deftly avoiding EXPLICITLY addressing in presenting "the problem with feats." What I mean by "deftly avoiding" is that Dungeon Masterpiece's argument is somewhat Emersonian in style: Dungeon Masterpiece gives you all the premises to the argument, but they do so in a way that requires you, the audience, to actually piece it all together to arrive at the intended conclusion. This rhetorical strategy could be motivated purely by the YT algorithm or it could be for other reasons. Nonetheless, Dungeon Masterpiece's conclusion is precisely what you have just said: why WOULD a character increase their STR when they are, mechanically, dependent on DEX? The entire system is designed to be restrictive and keep the characters on a "mathematical treadmill," as it is called. Therefore, the sub-conclusion of Dungeon Masterpiece's argument might go, why not design your TTRPGs differently and, more importantly, interestingly?
@@enigmaze7489 Yes its called playing a role its not a flaw its a feature. You work as a team, the rogue don't have to focus on str because the features usually on dex while the barbarian's is all about str. As stated by pack tactics the ASI turns it from a 40% to a 45% which isn't enough when they could take the moble feat, make their dex a 20 so they can focus on a secondary stat. If you notice the races all had their own favored class usually with a class that works well with it.
That is basically the reason why RPG systems with mechanics more centred around skills are more flexible than those centred on classes. In the former systems you can, if you want to, acquire almost any skill you would like to. Sure some things are restricted to certain groups of professions (Fighters, Magic users etc.) but in the end, the skill systems do allow a character to be developed in almost any direction without such constraints as multiclassing...
Two things: 1) Vertical power creep and the DM responding with escalation should come with a consummate CR increase and increase in XP and treasure. Vertical power creep does tend to put the game on harder difficulty, faster, but you get more stuff and progress in levels faster, too. That's an entire style of play that is in fact valid. 2) That being said, I'm an advocate for horizontal character design and think it's good for games. I don't believe the ability score increase really is horizontal progression, though. For many characters, it's as vertical as vertical progression gets - literally +1 to everything relevant. Generally speaking, defenses are cheap, offenses are expensive. The best advice for good, fun character design is to build characters that passively evade incoming problems and with good combat choices make up for the missing +1 or +2 bonus with situational advantage and intraparty buffs. It's actually *just fine* to miss another 2 attacks every combat when the monsters suddenly are missing every other attack. Remember, every 2 AC on the party is a free time stop every 3rd encounter.
The weaknesses caused by vertical scaling were even worse in D&D 3E since that game had no concept of bounded accuracy. Instead, your core skills were expected to go up by +1 per level. so for example, a Dex-based fighter who could keep up with the rogue while sneaking (a core skill for rogues but not fighters) at 1st level would be terribly loud at 10th level when the rogue had a +5 to +10 advantage over the fighter. If the DM makes sentries who can possibly spot the rogue, they can definitely spot the fighter, or if the DM makes sentries who are a match for the fighter's sneakiness, then they are no match for the rogue. This is true for all sorts of skill checks, including AC in combat. Since 4E was much more combat-focused, since it was more team-work based, and since roles in it were much more defined for PCs and monsters, it was easier for a DM to craft specific enemies for specific PC types. At its best, it could lead to fun comic book type fights where the fighter and rogue switch opponents, for example, to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses to the other PC, or where the Leader's buff provides timely help for everyone in the party.
except the fighter has his effective Dex capped by armour, and that gets worse as the armour type improves. And armour penalties /meant/ something in 3/3.5. Max dex mod +2 combined with -10 to all skill means that fighter isn't sneaking. Now, a ranged fighter in light armour, that works. And I've done it. :P Bow and dagger-whip (either with shield or two-handed), mithril breastplate: killer combo for second-line fighter.
This is the EXACT reason I prefer to use preset encounters for a given level rather than design them to fit the party. I want my players vertical scaling decisions to actually lead to an advantage rather than them getting weaker in every other aspect of their behaviour because I'm throwing enemies at them who are just as good at everything as they are at one niche thing.
The more I play, the more I GM, and the more videos I watch, the more I'm convinced that DnD 5e is just broke. It has way too much going on inside of it, and since nothing is perfect, imperfection was stacked upon imperfection for years, and now we have the mess we do. That's why there's entire channels dedicated to talking about all the broken things you can do in it that are "perfectly legal". Kind of like most video games these days T_T
Not to imply that there wasn’t a big problem with piles of tiny-contributing or annoyingly-situational feats in 4E. But it scaled properly. Ability checks would scale like this in 4E: The DC to break a latched wooden door is 10. At first level, your average fighter has a STR ability bonus of +4 or +5, more likely to successfully shoulder-bash a door open than not. Your average first-level wizard has a STR ability of -1 or +0, presenting a statistical problem for them. If either character progresses naturally all the way to thirtieth level taking the standard bumps to their prime requisites, those same STR ability checks are likely to be +25 for the fighter, and absolutely no less than +15 for the wizard (even if they initially rolled with 8 STR, and did nothing to advance it, all abilities bump up two tics automatically and all checks contained “plus half-level) and therefore at max level it is impossible for a small framed wizard, no matter the build, to fail at breaking open a locked wooden door of DC15. Thirtieth level is basically meant to be approaching potential apotheosis ahhaha! Perhaps they are so adept at the soft application of magical power that the wizard merely touches a door and concentrates for a moment, latent energy splintering the object forth. They still won’t be able to tackle busting doors of their own relevant challenge volume, which might be reinforced Dissian steel with a DC of 35. The opposite is true when regarding INT ability checks, because a fighter who rolls with 8 INT will have 10 INT at twenty-first level and therefore an INT ability bonus of +15. So they are fully capable of automatically succeeding in determining what semi-specific language they are looking at when they observe letters. Doesn’t mean they are intuitive enough to figure out a complex epic puzzle, but formerly nigh-impossible tasks can become so mundane that they are passed over in the narrative, reminding characters how powerful they have become.
My two favorite, and in my opinion best, editions are 2E and 4E. Both editions had fairly clear, and different, visions of what they were trying to be. I prefer 2E, but I appreciate 4E because it clearly does what it is trying to do in an elegant manner. 3E and 5E are just confused editions. 4E was a video game, but it was a good video game with very clear and mostly well tuned mechanics. The big problem with 4E was that D&D players can be more willfully obtuse than an infomercial demonstrator showing how to use the competitor's product and the editions major sin was not spelling out the things that benefited least from being spelled out. Honestly, 5E to me is defined by being an incoherent melding of being opposed to 4E while being wholly unwilling, or lacking sufficient design insight, to give up the explicit gamification of the RPG experience. You ever notice how encounter powers are "bad" and were instead replaced by classes that get ~2 uses of a power that is recharged on a short rest that is supposed to happen every other fight? 5E feels like the office politics edition, where someone staged a coup to get someone's job and then is doing literally the exact some thing as the person who they ousted but has to disguise it by making it a more obtuse version that is saddled with discordant features that exist to prove that it really isn't what the last guy was doing.
@@thewillandtheway6127 Is this like. My favorite youtube comment ever? I have been trying to formulate this for seven years and you just collected it for me
A video about how a level system making characters just stronger is a problem for creating a consistent interesting game world? Yes. One should not become stronger at all for more believable worlds. But that is not what DnD is made for.
The vertical scaling issue is really really easy to see in the early editions where there are no feats. THAC0 for a level 9 fighter is 11. THAC0 for your level 4 fighter with a +5 sword is 11 as well. But you have 25 hit points instead of 50, so when you fight the monster at the appropriate scale you will get hurt and die much faster despite hitting the same. I don’t have a major issue with this but it took me 30 years to realize weapon specialisation was basically getting a free level when fighting. This is absolutely ridiculous unless you are giving out a lot of wands and potions to the other characters to buff them. You find the Paladin really misses that bonus for weapon specialisation and even worse if they aren’t detecting evil constantly (1/2e) and laying on hands. You offer an enchanted weapon to balance things and it becomes even worse!! LOL 😂 because now your specialist can’t use the weapon or worse, becomes the clear Choice for having the magic weapon in a tight situation like a wraith fight. So, we end up with awful game balance and nuclear arms race MAD. All this talk of specialists is great in a heist game where the mage can kill the guard with a gun just as easily as the rogue or fighter but the notion of the tank is simply absurd in anything except an actual WW2 war simulator. A fantasy rpg needs all cylinders firing. The mage should be more than a spear carrier once the spells are gone. Hyper specialists should not exist. Horizontal scaling is ultimately more fun. My level 2 party got a Philtrr of Persuasion and actually used it on the third attempt of the goblin tower lair. They cleared the tower by asking nicely with two failed saving throws. That’s horizontal power and i think it’s clear that horizontal scaling helps the creative player. The dumbass who just wants to roll d20 can’t figure out another idea except hit them with the hammer. Because every goblin is literally a nail to them. It’s ok at 7 years old. 27? Cmon. Let the min maxing go….
Taking suboptimal feats for stroy or rp reasons is one of my favorite uses... my fighter has used druidcraft thru his magic initiate feat far more than any of my other characters
I've always seen feats as a way of expanding your character in ways that aren't covered by your class to match the concept you have for the character (that and in 3rd Ed giving fighters more interesting options in combat). I think I agree with your general analysis though. A good feat is one that gives you permission to rp in a way you otherwise wouldn't.
This analysis presupposes mechanical optimization in character builds is necessary to enjoy Dungeons and Dragons. I concur when playing D&D a more strategic playstyle (absolutely valid), but my personal philosophy as a DM is to allow the characters to build less than-optimized characters if they like, and using my discretion as a DM to adjust challenges accordingly. Of course, I do make sure to point out anything that mechanically hobbles a PC. That said, I agree that horizontal scaling can certainly add more depth to any game.
There are two glaring problems with feats: 1) there are four or five must haves unless you are purposefully under powering yourself. 2) there are (almost?) no feats to support exploration or social encounter. The first is poor design and the second is by design. Number two is also the source of your battle master example - by design. If there were more choices, and those choices were meaningful i.e. there was no demonstrably better choice, than that would address the vertical power issues you underlined. That would, however, go against the design philosophy of 5E. Honestly though vertical power is not a problem if you understand how it works: you let your players stomp on things and enjoy their new power for a while before slowly ramping up the difficulty again. If you did it right the inflection point of levelling up from "the monsters are stronger than I am" to "I am stronger than the monsters" is what makes leveling up feel good. Also I AFAIK the backgrounds in 5E are really just, mechanically, vehicles for some more languages and tools. For what you were talking about something like Runequest's (or Traveler's or Dune's House system or..) life path system would work better. You could spin out an entire system or story for 5E backgrounds, but there is zero support for that. Also I don't think horizontal "power(?)" excludes synergistic interactions, they should just be light and not the main focus.
This "issue" only occurs with DMs that insist on punishing players for gaining "power". Surely if a player chooses to specialise for certain events, a good DM would surely occasionally set up encounters to allow that player to use those abilities and feel like a hero (and occasionally a challenge, that bypasses them, but perhaps is perfect for another party member to face). Either way, it feels like feats are the wrong target for this rant.
The problem with your video is that you ignore the vast array of "horizontal" feats that do not increase power and act in a similar way as the RP-centric features you focus on. And your example of why feats make players weaker has nothing to do with feats, but with the base scaling of enemy and the (bad) math of the CR system.
The real problem with this video, which you astutely saw through, unknowingly, was that we specifically agree, but I can't say what this video is actually about in a thumbnail and title that will actually get people to click on the video and see the point that I'm trying to make. It's not just feats. But feats gets clicks. It's the whole asymmetrical level scaling problem. unfortunately, with yt, It's all about story framing for the thumbnail picture and the 30-60 characters of the title.
I'm sorry but you deserve more subs. Glad you popped up in my recommendations I run feats different. It's not either or when players reach certain levels. They can take feats, earn them, and they increase their stats
@@doms.6701 Stat increases generally suffer from the same "narrowly better" issue as most feats do, just not with the same level of specificity. I wonder, however, of you could harden a relationship with another npc or location as part of that ability score improvement?
1:50 'Traps and the dungeon Master throws at the party become tougher to match the characters.' That was your mistake. Feats are specializations, they're things a character is supposed to be especially good at compared to the average adventurer of their class who didn't have that ability. It's not something a DM should be accounting for in an arms race. *Regarding the Dire Wolf Example:* does a fighter or Barbarian get worse at resisting trip (without accounting for feats?) If they do, it's the wolf getting better. If they don't (again, ignoring feats) then it's an issue in the Rogue class, not the feats lol.
I'm a Doctor Jim, not a brick layer! Feats & Skills are dumb in a class based game system. Either a characters class has an ability or not. Sure the Fighter can pick a lock (poorly), but that is not their main skill set. Conversely, a Rogue can easily pick that lock, but are not that tough in a stand up fight. Just like I can DIY install a new window on my house, but a well trained tradesman who does window installs every day is going to the job more quickly and at a higher level of quality than I ever could.
I have been thinking of running a game that eschews conventional classes and leveling and instead giving out feats and features for in game actions. My hope is that through this reward system I could encourage players to engage with the world, experiment with different tactics and use downtime between adventures to pursue skills and abilities that interest them. As it is I find we lose a great many opportunities to role play and learn about our characters. When a Warlock, a Cleric, a Paladin and a Rogue all just meet up in a bar one day and decide to go adventuring we often will ignore the inherent tension between these groups much like we ignore the backgrounds, especially since the alternative often ends with them trying to kill each other and steal their stuff. So I'm thinking of doing the 0 level funnel where they will play their characters as their background jobs and they will have to earn their new titles through play. I want the class features to have intentionality, I want those classes that rely on a patron to actually have a relationship with them; I want the primal classes to have a connection to nature and the martial classes speak in awed wispers of famous champions. Barbarians could represent aspects of The Beast and nature's primal fury or perhaps they are the unwitting vessel of a demon cage within them? There are all kinds of different ideas and stories we could explore though I accept it is not for ever table.
that's indeed a big constrain on the types of stories in traditional rpg's - A french game designer known as Tiramisu called it the postcard phenomenon: most RPGs are adventure stories, the characters are heroes with specialized abilities (particularly, complementary combat styles) who grow stronger and get better - the setting can be fantasy, sci fi, more or less contemporary - the level of danger and action will vary somewhat but the framework is the same, for the most part. One of the games that most radically shakes that is called Polaris, by ben lehman. For one, the narrative is explicitly a tragedy - the character might grow somewhat stronger, but nor really better - for a second thing, and that's the one that's relevant to you the player aren't a group of PCs, rather, each player gets turns where they're the active player character, and others where they are Co-DMing, meaning that when it's your turn as the PC, it's your story, your narrative arc, your motivations , actions and sacrifices that matter, and everyone at the table is there to make sure that story is as engaging as it can be - so one player can have his story focused on political drama, while another's is more action heavy, another have more romance, etc...
I'd argue class/level based systems are the issue. It doesn't produce "real" people, but archetypes who's point is to fill a niche, similar to horoscopes or various personality categorization systems.
I disagree, forming a win strategy is part of the game and the players enjoy it, they like to get better at making what they want to do, even if they trade some of their general hability to get it. That is one of the reasons why D&D has classes, so people can specialise in a particular role. Puting the meele fighters in the front and the casters in the back would not be considereted powercreep, chosing habilits that sinergise whit your gamestile should not.
So, you're saying that as the PC levels up, they actually grow weaker? But this is done while the Player becomes more experienced/ better at playing said character. Good.
a friend of mine creates characters with nothing but roleplay in mind, and I admire the hell out of it. His current character is a Fighter with the Chef feat, and all he wants to do is cook
2:03 Adventuring days are over an average and your hp always increases, so this is a false observation. 2:38 This is a false comparison. It is not the same creature. In truth the character has gotten better or at least no worse at avoiding trips, the wolf has not gotten better at all. You are using a different monster, one that is better at tripping. What you are asking here is that if someone dedicates themselves to a craft that others should still be able to passively resist this more without dedicated effort, however this is just your same observation in reverse. Has your dedicated tripper gotten worse at tripping despite their dedication or have their opponents gotten better despite their lack of effort. As you can see philosophically it cuts both ways, but there's a simple solution. If you put effort into doing something better you should get more effective at it, ergo you should get worse at avoiding dedicated trippers as you both level up if you don't dedicate any resources to countering that. The only seeming contradiction in all of this is from observation bias and misattributed comparisons. 5:22 all of this can literally be conjured up with background story regardless of feats. This isn't something that horizontal feats as you define them give great power to. They're in the game regardless of these feats. Actual horizontal feats are ones that simply expand the versatility of the character. Taking an anti tripping feat for example is a horizontal feat if you don't already have much specialty in it. So your definition is also incorrect here. As such vertical feats don't make a character weaker necessarily. Nor are horizontal feats the best without question. All versatility but not power has little to no meaning, just as a hyper niche scenario specialty character. In truth neither is necessarily better than the other conceptually outside of context. It depends on the character and the situation. A 10 vertical 0 horizontal ability spread probably is not as effective as an 8:2 spread. However an 8:2 spread may still find itself better suited than a 6:4 spread. It all depends.
To me it seems, like a lot of 5e, is it's on the DM to talk to the players/notice what the characters like to do, and ensure they have those opportunities in the game so they can feel happy about their choices
Or what irritates me, a player makes a character that goes totally off the rails of your pre-made game world, and it's clear the player didn't read the 400 word prompt before the campaign
This honestly really depends, and is a delicate ecosystem. If your players are going to be upset if you start off the campaign by having them naked and alone in the smoking ruins of a caravan after an elven raid, and you as the GM have zero idea how they are going to get out of it but are all ears about them scrounging around for pieces of treasure like sticks and rocks and eventually trying to find food... then talking them into playing in a Dark Sun campaign may be a big mistake as a DM. On the flip side, having a player who signs up for a Dark Sun game and makes a character who is an arcane caster that is constantly using magic to be "funny" in public doesn't need their choices validated. I don't know if I don't remember things accurately, if the card combo based design of modern D&D skews things, the serious lack of supported and coherent and distinct campaign worlds, or if there is a general increase in narcissism in society now... but the sheer lack of cooperation that I see when it comes to trying to get a campaign off the ground feels worse than it has ever been. I understand that session zero is a concept, but frankly that used to be something covered under general manners. Not that I've seen people respect the last several session zeros that I've been part of. If 5 players are all going in 5 different directions, and all those directions were decided before they listened to the GM describe the world... then anything the GM tries to run will be schizophrenic. The players need to listen to the world the GM is trying to make, and then the GM needs to watch how the players are interacting with that world and validate that interaction by having the world respond to it and not railroading them instead. The story that unfolds should revolve around the character's actions, but a world can't be built around a random collection of characters doing random things.
@@thewillandtheway6127 these are good points, particularly about manners. It's pathetic you have to cover things like not talking over each other in session zero with grown adults
Other RPG systems do a much better job with horizontal scaling than D&D, which by design is mostly vertically scaled. I'm thinking here of games like the storyteller system of both the Old & New World of Darkness series (formerly by White Wolf), Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, West End's Star Wars, Traveller, etc. I favor a mix of both vertical and horizontal scaling, depending upon the setting. For stories set in a contemporary setting where the physical power differential between one's antagonists isn't that great, since everyone is human in a semi-realistic version of the present, then vertical scaling doesn't make much sense. But for superhero games set in the modern era it very much does make sense. It depends upon the setting, since in scaling up enemies with a radically fast power curve for the players does fit some settings (e.g. superheroes).
Cleverly implied conclusions aside, you've made me question how much is considered a "mechanical" representation vs. a "roleplay" representation. For instance, I used to strongly dislike "Reputation Score" systems in games (and I think 5e has something like it in the DMG) because I felt those kinds of systems metamorphosed the "RP" value of something into bland mechanical ones. And I also implicitly believed that not every important facet of a character needed a mechanical representation. However, in a game like Vampire: The Masquerade: V5 (VtM), a game which I *don't* hold the same misgivings about "roleplay representations" on the character sheet about, these "RP" elements are explicitly incorporated into one's character through a "Backgrounds and Advantages" system. To illustrate, if you wanted to play a character who had secret connections to the mafia in VtM, that could be represented on your sheet as several different Advantages. Perhaps that connection could be "Contacts (Criminal) 3-dots" to represent that you have a few criminal buddies who could help you out in a time of questionable legal circumstances; it could even be represented as "Influence (Mafia) 3-dots" to represent that you have some weight to throw around with the mafia and they can't just ignore your questions or requests. The point is: depending on how the player frames that connection (through their choice of Advantage/Background), they will likely get different perks when they call upon that connection in the story. Moreover, within a game like VtM, it is *expected* by the core system that a ST (the D/GM equivalent in the Storyteller System) will *provide* various Backgrounds/Advantages to players to represent their characters' accomplishments and choices throughout the game. I think this expectation within the system encourages players to interact with *the world* of the game rather than just the *system.* I think it might also enable them to feel like their character's raw STR score, for instance, isn't the primary issue they should be concerning themselves with when deciding how to allocate their precious XP (VtM game is an "XP Purchase" system (i.e. it costs n XP to increase stat from value n1 to value n2; and the higher the value of the stat is, the more costly it is to increase it) and, if you play the game with the recommended XP accumulation in the core rulebook, it could take well over 15 sessions of play just to bump your "18 STR" to "20 STR," to use D&D equivalents.) While stat increases are expensive, you know what *can* be purchased every couple of sessions, if the players wanted? Advantages and Backgrounds. Thus, I think that a system like VtM actually encourages players to focus *less* on vertical growth. I wonder if "feats" from a game like D&D couldn't be handled a similar way? (Even if a DM allowed this, though, it wouldn't get around your main contention in this video: namely, that the focus on vertical growth actually hamstrings players.) I feel like the simplest solution to the problem you presented is to just switch to a different game. (And that's totally legitimate! I would like to convince my players to let me run a different fantasy game than 5e as our "main game" as well haha).
I think this video reflects the difficulty scale question: is it tougher or harder? Tougher fights are easier to do while harder fights can be solved, which can make them easier.
D&D has been clipping player's wings since 3rd edition in the name of giving them options or protecting them from the theoretical horrible DM would would still be a horrible DM you shouldn't be playing with no matter what the rule book says they shouldn't be doing. "Feats" as random special connections or learned tricks just existed as part of play in prior editions, either as something home brewed or an implicit understanding in terms of what the DM would or wouldn't let you roll on based on what your character had done. The only thing giving player's explicit feats per the rules as written did was make the DM think they should be constraining how often those sorts of things were acquired by the players, and to only allow those things to be selected from a pre-set menu. When I run a game, I always tell players that whatever they get from me will be better than anything they try and force me to give them by citing character build rules. If I throw the rules out they can get "bad" feats that are cool because I threw the rules that told me how many feats they are supposed to have so I can give them "good" feats too. It doesn't matter if the monk sucks compared to that hyper-optimized build someone else has, because I threw the rules out that said when I had to give what to whom. When you throw out this mentality of trying to run a "balanced" game they have tried to create, the only people that lose are the people trying to win D&D. Those are the last people you should be playing with. Also, when the rules don't try and fail at mathematically balancing the game with strict rules, you end up with a balanced game because the DM can plainly see who is ahead and behind in power because the DM has eyes.
Every time I watch one of your videos, it just reinforces the fact that D&D 5e rules suck. There are way better systems that have been evolving way past the ineptitude of D&D rules… like Free League Forbidden Lands.
Nah, this video is a pretty disingenuous look at how feats work. I know plenty of players who take feats to shore up weaknesses and improve their characters' versatility. As Baron said, feats are optional and there are tons to choose from.
The only reason that I'm fine with it being vertical is that you aren't by yourself. In most rpg parties you optimize you team to there strengths while making sure their weaknesses could be covered by another party member.
Unless you are a druid. They can be by themselves? Need a tank? Bear. Need a rogue? Spider. Need a ranger? Eagle. Need a cleric? Goodberry. Need a blaster? Call lightning. 🤣🤣
@@DungeonMasterpiece Need to break a grapple um...hope your bear form can shove the person away. Need to pick that lock....hope that door/chest/etc has room for that spider to get through. Unless the Druid has decided to specialize to take the role of another character, the Druid will probably never really replace another character. They can certainly pitch hit, but they are not the party.
"Has the wolf gotten better at tripping, or has the rogue gotten worse at avoiding it." It's not the same wolf. It's a direwolf. What are you talking about.
Encounters are typically scaled as your character level increases (level 1 characters fight regular wolves, level 5 characters fight dire wolves). Your power as a character only scales in weird jumps and at times only for certain activities. I hate that I had to type that out.
this is my biggest complaint with D&D, and it got worse with each edition until 5e went back toward limiting vertical growth, though it's still present to a lesser extent: level means nothing. what is a lv14 fighter? are they really good at fighting? it depends. in a world full of lv20 fighters, they're still a noob. in a world where a lv1 fighter is considered impressive, yeah, they're basically superhuman. there's no context to it.
yeah it's astounding that as much as 5e still has this vertical issue, it's nowhere as terrible as say 3e's insane BABs that barely keep up with monster AC and 4e's massively divergent attribute bonuses as you level up. D&D really does seem kinda broke on a fundamental level
To be fair, if you take a feat(like sentinel), you multiply your power. All the spell feats are nice because they let you mix what normally isn't supposed to be mixed. Rogue taking magic initiate just for the booming blade destroys 1st tier gameplay and improves your damage scaling by a lot.
Very interesting. I naturally scale vertically, so considering the horizontal scaling would be a great way to keep characters from becoming too one-dimensional.
The problem with 5e is how nonproficient checks literally never improve, so any encounter that checks against a bad save or skill is going to be disproportionally hard relative to the nominal challenge level of the party or the creature. And it only gets worse if you scale the DC to their level Unless they lose initiative, a cr2 intellect devourer is going to be just as threatening to a level 2 barbarian as a level 20 barbarian... Which is to say, insanely threatening. But if that level 20 barbarian is going against a CR 20 monster that happens to have an ability that saves against something he's not proficient in, he's actually got LESS chance of saving than he did at level 2, because now the DC is so much higher
I don't exactly see it as a problem, it was deliberate. When the game was conceived, along with bounded accuracy, there was a push to make low level bad guys relevant at high levels. A commonly related issue with 3rd and 4th edition was that you'd never see low level monsters in high level play, because discrepancy was so high that monsters became unable to affect them at all, even with hordes of them. That created the problem where in the wilderness, at the early levels, there was lots of bandits, goblins, wolves, etc, but later on that "fauna" misteriously faded to give place to giants, dragons, and other high level creatures that now conveniently roam around the same area. Furthermore, that way of playing meant that players never really grew more powerful, as the monsters leveled up along with the characters and combats were always at a fixed level of difficulty. I, as a DM, have a kick out of using low level bad guys and still earning thrilling combats against high level players. Only at high levels you get to live the fantasy of fightning against hordes of orcs or zombies, while that combat still means somewhat of a challenge, or even face a dozen shadows. Sure they'll die easily, but if you screw around, particularly if there is a different menacing creature along with them, one could kill a PC easily. Same with banshees, intellect devourer, sea hag, catoblepas, etc. Heck, you could feasibily have a dungeon with kobolds against a 20 level party and draw some meaning of it. And deep down, a red dragon is awaiting!
@@abelsampaio389 I know it was intentional, but it was badly implemented. They overcorrected A good DM could make high level encounters with low end creatures in 3rd edition. I know because I've done it. One of my favorite games was a short (3-5 session) dungeon crawl I wrote where a 15-20th level party is tasked with clearing out a particularly nasty kobold mine. I didn't even need a dragon. But that's beside the point. Because in 5th edition you only ever get better at the things you're already good at it crates situations where you're so specialized that a level appropriate encounter that plays to those strengths is going to be moderately challenging at best or trivially easy at worst, but a level appropriate encounter that focuses on the party's weaknesses is going to be disproportionally difficult... And it only gets worse as your level increases. A CR 1 creature with, say, a charm power may have a DC of 11 And the level 1 Barbarian with a +0 wisdom save (not even a bad wisdom, just average) has about a 45% chance to save. Perfect, right? Challenging but not incredibly so. Let's skip ahead a few levels. A cr5 monster is expected to have a save dc of 13 The barbarian still has a +0. Now he's only got a 35% chance to save... 10th level, DC 16... Barb is down to 20% At 1st level the barbarian had more than TWICE the likelihood of saving against that type of effect. He's gotten LESS EFFECTIVE over time. He didn't stagnate, he actively regressed. The rules are naturally written with the expectation that the players improve as they level, so to present a challenge the monsters get tougher. But if you have a stagnant area, the monsters still improve but you do not, making things effectively worse for you. Every previous edition even going back to original D&D had characters progressing even in areas they were bad at, so it made that disparity much less pronounced. Now let's pretend that non-proficient saves get half proficiency (rounded UP just to be generous). It's believable that years of adventuring results in a character who has at least gotten a little better at things outside of their speciality just from general knowledge and live experience. Level 5, barbarian now has a +1, so against the same type of charm encounter he's got a 40% chance to save... We're still regressing but not nearly as bad. At level 10 he's at 30% he's still getting worse at the thing he should just be stagnant in, but by now the players themselves have also learned and the occasional buff spell or clever tactics to keep the charmer out of range of the barb or whatever can help compensate. The worst part is, these weaknesses are pretty much locked in at level 1 and barring spending all your ASIs to shore up your weaknesses instead of improving for strengths, they're never going to improve. Even multiclassing doesn't give you save proficiencies and rarely even skills. Hell, you can't even get heavy armor prof through multiclassing, barring certain kinds of cleric that get it as a class ability I'm not saying we should go back to the bad old days of +35 attack bonuses and a ton of situational modifiers. By and large I love 5e and would not go back But this one aspect is kind of crazy when you stop and look at it.
This is one of the first things I tackled when making my own RPG game. I dislike when DnD gets around Level 7+ and there just so much clutter. I wanted to make a game where a new "Lv1" Wizard can still adventure with a "Lv10" Paladin and not be hindered by their levels or monster challenge ratings. By cutting all the chaff: Health per level, Attributes per level, Spells per level... and only letting a player pick ONE horizontal ability or levelless-spell from a large Class pool the game is so much more fun. My player's Wizard can choose Fireball at 1st level... or 10th level... and cast it every turn. A higher level player has more options/experience... but is never inherently overpowering a beginning character. The same monsters that attack you the first session are just as dangerous in the tenth session, you just have more ways to get the better of them. Maybe they're weak against or fear that Fireball you didn't have last time. I hate inflating numbers in games, and DnD's accumulating Health/Damage system is one of the worst, cutting that out alone makes combat much faster and way more fun.
I love hearing other points of view but I don’t think this is really a issue. Players are of course going to want to get better at what they do and in the case of all but a couple cases that just does not pan out that a level 1 character is les effective then later in their career (primarily thanks to Subclasses). That people will want to do one thing mechanically that will be part of one’s primarily character fiction. If you want to be Robin Hood like character then you will want to get sharpshooter because he was .. a sharpshooter. But did having that make the player less into the game world - almost never is that the case. Seeing a character improve and do better that thing that they want to do is part of the game. And being powerful or weak is usually a matter of comparison to others in world. When you compare backgrounds (which are often still RP focused) to Feats (which are mechanical) then you are comparing two different thing. Out side of the Power Backgrounds (A different topic) backgrounds just give a standard benefit that tends to just simplify one element of the game world while opening RP possibilities. They do different things. If your saying that feats are too powerful by focusing a player on one thing that they almost certainly want to do and thus makes them less powerful because feats are powerful, that does not really work. Not all feats are powerful or even to the same level of power. Keen Mind is pitiful compared to many other feats but you can argue it is very good at adding flavor to a character - but amazingly it often means the player themselves is not as attentive to the game session as they can just Keen mind parts they forgot when a player with out it may actually take notes. The real issue with feats for me (IMHO) is that they are of such variable power levels and so unbalanced to each other that a person can find themselves feeling they must take some and others make a person feel they are making a mistake for getting them (AKA “Trap feats”). These weaker feats (mostly in the PHB) are or should be half feats or even given as rewards free by the DM instead of using what is not a Free ASI on them(Sans the Ability +1). I know this can be power creep but that is a given for all RPGs and games of significant age. The key is to maintain balance so as long as every thing is balanced you should be able to up the bad guys and it all work. Just as long as things don’t get out of hand.
I agree that feats add power to the player though I will disagree on a key point. Some of the most unbalanced feats are from the PHB. Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and Lucky are all pretty unbalanced compared to the some of the later half and full feats from later books. There are also a lot of trash feats in the PHB, but there are some of the most balance disrupting ones as well.
@@SilvrSavior The feats you are considering are more what are called the power feats but that is not the problem with them and honesty I don’t even see them as a problem. It is a different issue but these are (excepting the Lucky feat ) that really are key to the fantasy of being a martial character. Without them the magic casters tend to overpower the outshine the martial. Ex- The fantasy is you are the knight in shining armor that engages the black knight and if they try to move away you step in front to protect the weak with your armor and power. if you were to remove Sentinel and it is very hard to be the Knight that will protect anyone as they can disengage to easily from the warrior and move past them. If you have feat you hit them speed goes to “0” and they can’t get past you. Add a off the cuff speech about “You shall no pass” and fantasy forefilled. One can argue that when you stack them they become very powerful and maybe as a DM you can rule that they get only one. But honestly you can balance for them. And if they are not in the game, you are still going balance anyway. And honesty spells are far more of an issue considering that players love save or suck spells - and moe so with silvery barbs. DPR and Def power is easy to figure out for those that use martial feats. And in game using a tracking approach quickly gives you realtime as how dangerous or soft they can be (after all they are going to use those feats in preference). In fact, I could argue that they should be better incorporated into the martial classes and system level balanced. ((Edit Note : Typed “Polearm Master” but kept saying to myself “Sentinel” - my bad))
I've moved on from D&D to D6 Fantasy-Space-Adventure, but video guy is right about this odd treadmill effect, and It's not isolated to D&D, seems to afflict any system that operates on notions of tier/level/hit dice etc.
I dont Think I quite understand this video. I mean I understand the point but yet I Think it is not true. In your example of the rogue, then it doesn’t make the rogue weaker just because the chance of getting tripped goes from 50% to 40%. Because it is a new encounter with a new monster. If you put the levelled up rogue against the same Wolf as the level 1 rogue then it would be easier. But no player wants the game to get easier every time they level up. Look at every game, like World of Warcraft, it gets harder the more you progress, counter strike, your opponents get harder to beat as you rank up, etc. However, it is the dms job to make the players feel powerful through the game. In the beginning they had 50% of not getting tripped by a wolf. At level 15 they have only a 25% chance of not getting tripped swallowed by a dragon. It is a dragon, it is supposed to feel deadlier than a wolf. The players are not supposed to feel it is easier to kill the dragon than the wolf. Though as the dm you should sometimes send some monsters that the players Can wipe the floor with to show Them how much they have progressed if they dont feel they have gotten stronger when they killed a dragon. I do agree though that the feat system is greatly flawed as there are too big of a difference between must-have feats and almost useless feats. 70% of the feats are never pucken because it is not only suboptimal, it is a complete waste. I play pathfinder right now where feats are much better in my opinion :)
You're picking on feats in relation to scaling when they're derrived from player's option to enhance on customization? Do you not make background for your npcs/pcs & such? 3/3.5e did well (but could be abused, hence dm has all final say-literally written in dmg & phb) on mechanics based rewards on your pc/npc has this because they did that. Not touch 4e with a 10 or 12ft pole... Didn't like after 7 sessions & never looked back. On 5e they attempted to keep it ... but I'm pretty sure they kept them because; if you remove them altogether, all classes & their subs are just clones with race/species swapping. Boring as power builds & might as well make a video game with limited cattleshot options. Feats in 5e kinda also made up for broken bits of multiclassing but had a heavy bias against player.
You are making a ton of assumptions. "power level" is a real mechanical way to look at things. Feats, if anything increase the flexibility of any character. It is a damn shame that "oh you rogue, you sneak" or "Oh you cleric, you heal" is a thing. It fixes players in a play style with specific mechanics that tighten the role and function of a character. I didn't start with D&D as my first TTRPG system (it was white wolfs WOD). In other systems you are less forced into a certain role, though you have stronger options in your "given role". But you can go against the grain by making choices that D&D does not allow. Also the threats that characters face can become more difficult, but that is entirly up to the DM. Why does the entire world become stronger when the players do, that is kinda weird and makes no sense. Sure certain enemies will be more difficult, but not all checks and traps need to become more difficult. Your example of the direwolf is poor. The "wolf" didn't get better, it was another creature entirely. And meeting Dire wolves should be waaay less likely than meeting a wolf in the first place. 5:10 So homebrewing a feat is alright, but giving them a feat for leveling up is bad? You are not consistent with your own argument there. I feel your argument is towards certain types of feats. Not towards feats in general. So your argument is vertical feat = bad, versatile feat = good. If I understand you correct.
This why feats, perks, talents etc, needs to be something that changes rules, not add bonuses. Like: "re roll your dice in this scenarios and chose best results", or "this characteristic counts like different characteristic for you" etc. You should approach feats like card game, not just create something class specific, but locked until some point in the game.
5e Feats are kind of a grab bag. I took the Parry feat for my swashbuckler rogue, and it was so situational it only came up like 3 times in the entire campaign.
I don’t think having a 50% chance to not be knocked down by a wolf and only a 40% chance to not be knocked down by a dire wolf means your character has got worse at avoiding being knocked down, it just means the dire wolf is better at knocking down than the wolf and your character got no better at avoiding the effect.
New to the chanel. Bery interesting take, this a possition I havent heared before. Not sure that I completly agree but at the very least I see new value in things like backgrounds. Thanks!
This is the exact same issue Elder Scrolls: Oblivion had. To the point that a common advice to players was to stay at level 1 for as long as possible, since you were the most powerful compared to enemies in the game.
