Simpler and more flexible: it is possible and it is desirable

[EnjoyTheJourney]

The enhancement pass currently brings with it more information and more rules to learn; those added rules are adding up to less build flexibility than under the old system and the added information, plus the new rules, make the system harder to learn for newer and casual players. To fix this, here are a couple of suggestions to get a dialogue started:

1. Eliminate feat prerequisites -- Required feats become feats that are automatically granted when reaching a threshold level; adjust other aspects of a given PrE to keep balance in check, or swap out a very powerful feat that would be granted and replace it with an auto-granted "weaker cousin" that wouldn't harm overall balance. As for why, feat prerequisites draw on a completely different in-game system and they're a complication that's likely to trip up new players (who may miss out on taking the feat) and to frustrate experienced players (if they don't want the feat).

2. Reduce Clutter -- Move the mechanically weakest enhancements (especially the passives) to the status of auto-grants upon reaching some threshold level (in a class, in a PrE). Also, merge some enhancements that are individually weak, but that might be worthwhile if taken as a group and that have a common theme. As an example, hide, move silently, listen, and spot could be grouped under "scout." Likewise, jump, run, and swim could be grouped under "athletics". You can also offer two ranks of advancement in a skill for each AP spent, to give more of an incentive to actually take the typically forsaken enhancements. Look at other enhancements that are "never asked to the prom" and follow a similar path. This cuts down on clutter and player confusion, which is desirable.

If you have other suggestions that both make the enhancements system simpler to navigate and give players more build flexibility, then please add them here -- within the boundaries of not breaking overall balance, which is clearly important. Also, if you have a better way in mind of implementing the two suggestions above, then please revise my first two efforts.

[chanw4]

I dont think required feat should be auto-grant at all for PrE.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

I dont think required feat should be auto-grant at all for PrE.

What's your reason?

The in-game explanation for auto-granted feats could be simple; in the course of training for your PrE, you acquire the expertise that would be granted by taking the feat.

Also, there are already enhancement prerequisites in place; no player just "waltzes in" to a PrE anyways, as they need to prepare and to plan ahead.

[chanw4]

What's your reason?

The in-game explanation for auto-granted feats could be simple; in the course of training for your PrE, you acquire the expertise that would be granted by taking the feat.

Pre-require feat are what you trained in order to gain access to the class, the enhancement give from the class is what you trained to gain.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

Pre-require feat are what you trained in order to gain access to the class, the enhancement give from the class is what you trained to gain.

Alternatively, the class is what you select to gain access to the PrE and the auto-granted feats are what you gain by training in the PrE. Another possibility is to reduce the number of feats associated with particular PrEs, in any form.

Do you have any suggestions for making the enhancements system less complicated?

[chanw4]

Alternatively, the class is what you select to gain access to the PrE and the auto-granted feats are what you gain by training in the PrE. Another possibility is to reduce the number of feats associated with particular PrEs, in any form.

Do you have any suggestions for making the enhancements system less complicated?

Auto granting feat because you can't be bothered to read the description is nothing about simplifying the enhancement system but simplifying the game.

The old enhancement system is bad because of its clunky UI.

There is nothing wrong with requiring feats to select the Prestige Class and its enhancement.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

Auto granting feat because you can't be bothered to read the description is nothing about simplifying the enhancement system but simplifying the game.

Simplifying the game is inherently bad or wrong for what reason? The better question is why do feats as prerequisites exist in the first place, to which there isn't a compelling response.

If you'd like to become a bodyguard with a black belt in karate, rather than an ordinary bodyguard, then you don't need to "take a feat" first. You sign up for karate classes and you build your skills along the way. PrEs should work the same way.

The old enhancement system is bad because of its clunky UI.

There is nothing wrong with requiring feats to select the Prestige Class and its enhancement.

The enhancements system is set to become even more complex than it already was.

Once again, do you have any suggestions for making the enhancements system now being tested less complicated, and also more flexible?

[Kakashi67]

Simplifying the game is inherently bad or wrong for what reason? The better question is why do feats as prerequisites exist in the first place, to which there isn't a compelling response.

If you'd like to become a bodyguard with a black belt in karate, rather than an ordinary bodyguard, then you don't need to "take a feat" first. You sign up for karate classes and you build your skills along the way. PrEs should work the same way.

The enhancements system is set to become even more complex than it already was.

Once again, do you have any suggestions for making the enhancements system now being tested less complicated, and also more flexible?

Unless the ad said "Bodyguard wanted; black belt required," and there's your feat requirement.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

Unless the ad said "Bodyguard wanted; black belt required," and there's your feat requirement.

So, you need the PrE to be able to take the PrE.

That's your argument?

[eachna_gislin]

If you have other suggestions that both make the enhancements system simpler to navigate and give players more build flexibility, then please add them here -- within the boundaries of not breaking overall balance, which is clearly important. Also, if you have a better way in mind of implementing the two suggestions above, then please revise my first two efforts.

I would like to see a significant reduction in the number of arrows between enhancements. I'm thinking one line of "take this to take that" enhancements in each box. Then the rest would only be limited by the number of points spent in the box.

Also, for build flexibility, the lowest couple tiers of enhancements should only cost 1 ap each, but should include many boosts you could take in stacks of 3.

That way you could scatter your ap where you like without being forced into taking multiple lines to get to the one or two high level abilities you want in a box.

[shadereaper33]

The enhancement pass currently brings with it more information and more rules to learn; those added rules are adding up to less build flexibility than under the old system and the added information, plus the new rules, make the system harder to learn for newer and casual players. To fix this, here are a couple of suggestions to get a dialogue started:

1. Eliminate feat prerequisites -- Required feats become feats that are automatically granted when reaching a threshold level; adjust other aspects of a given PrE to keep balance in check, or swap out a very powerful feat that would be granted and replace it with an auto-granted "weaker cousin" that wouldn't harm overall balance. As for why, feat prerequisites draw on a completely different in-game system and they're a complication that's likely to trip up new players (who may miss out on taking the feat) and to frustrate experienced players (if they don't want the feat).

2. Reduce Clutter -- Move the mechanically weakest enhancements (especially the passives) to the status of auto-grants upon reaching some threshold level (in a class, in a PrE). Also, merge some enhancements that are individually weak, but that might be worthwhile if taken as a group and that have a common theme. As an example, hide, move silently, listen, and spot could be grouped under "scout." Likewise, jump, run, and swim could be grouped under "athletics". You can also offer two ranks of advancement in a skill for each AP spent, to give more of an incentive to actually take the typically forsaken enhancements. Look at other enhancements that are "never asked to the prom" and follow a similar path. This cuts down on clutter and player confusion, which is desirable.

If you have other suggestions that both make the enhancements system simpler to navigate and give players more build flexibility, then please add them here -- within the boundaries of not breaking overall balance, which is clearly important. Also, if you have a better way in mind of implementing the two suggestions above, then please revise my first two efforts.

1-I'm not sure how many ways one can possibly disagree with this statement, but there aren't enough. Pre-req feats represent the fact that you have to have completed some level of training in a specific area (the feat) before you can continue your training in that area (the enhancement). Switching the order around and giving free feats in addition to the enhancements is far and away too powerful. Not to mention the whole "that isn't how D&D works" argument.

2-The dev's have already grouped skill boosting enhancements together in the new system. Beyond that, they have also added additional bonuses to some of them at the top tier. Most, if not all, of these skill enhancements are 1 ap/rank, which should be the absolute minimum. Asking for 1ap/2ranks, or more accurately 2 points in the skill per rank, just sounds greedy. Adding special "perks" to the top end of the skill enhancements that is in line with the skills is really about all they need to do to make these enhancements attractive.

In summary, your first idea should never see the light of day, and you second idea has been implemented as far as it needs to be.

[shadereaper33]

Simplifying the game is inherently bad or wrong for what reason?

There is a specific answer to this question actually.

Diablo 3.

[wolflordnexus]

Your not talking about simplifying the game here your talking about increasing power by removing costs. I wouldn't mind removing feat prerequisites if the PRE system is re balanced for that but that has little to do with simplifying the game. It would ad more flexibility but the abilities coming from PRE's would need to be nerfed pretty solidly to take that into account. as is it looks much lighter one the feats needed and a little boosted on the power scale at least for ranger. Of course ranger needed some love.