5th Edition Is A Mess

[Prak]

4th edition brought us the Corruption Corpse...

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article95.htm

and for that I am grateful.

That list just makes me want to run an dungeon where the only monsters are monsters that pretend to be mundane objects even more...

[Aharon]

Are you actually reading what you're writing? From 15th to 18th level, you expect me to care about +1/+1? The 15th level triceratops is a marginal improvement over the rhino at 6th. (+9 vs +7, 4d8+6 vs... 4d8+5). Go fuck yourself.

I didn't say "it's a huge improvement, you should never consider Land Circle". I Pointed out you missed some marginally better forms - I even started my post by saying "It's a bit better".

The Allosaurus compares pretty unfavorably to the bear I already listed (which hits more often and the two attacks are each 1d8+5 and 2d6+5 which is significantly better than 2d10+4, because +5, twice.

The Allosaurus also has pounce.

5e Wildshape is a weird pile of shit that benefits from phantom hit points but is penalized by abysmal AC, and is utterly inferior to druid spellcasting, where you just spawn those animals/elementals or even weirder shit, or save or suck. But even the normal version of wildshape can get you a pile of phantom HP, so... whatever. If you wanted to be a melee monster you shoulda been a cleric, or some other full caster that can have a functional AC and ridiculous ways proc extra attacks.

I don't debate that Land Circle is better, and that other classes are better. But I think it's not Land Circle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon Circle, it's more Land Circle > Moon Circle. We agree on the basic idea, it's just a question of nuance - or would you argue that Moon Circle is total garbage and worse than non-casters?

Conjure Elemental spawns CR 5 elementals (as opposed to your CR 3 elemental form)

Where do you get the CR 3 for elemental form from? Elementals have a fixed CR AFAIK, and that CR is 5. Also, as I mentioned, I see the main use as a defensive form - the list of Resistances and Immunities is pretty good. You could use one of the pokemon catcher spells on your action, then use wild shape as your bonus action and concentrate on the spell for the rest of the fight - making it more likely to last, since you will take less damage.

Additionally, on the Mammoth note, I will never care. This edition still has Shapechange in, and with that creature CR = your Level. So at 18th level, adult dragons are on the menu.

Overall, I agree that Shapechange is more powerful - I'd be insane not to. But Wild Shape does have its niches. For example, unlike Shapechange, it can't be dispelled.

and unlike wildshape, you keep class abililities.

From 18th level onward, druids can cast while wild shaped.[/u]

[Sir Aubergine]

4th edition brought us the Corruption Corpse...

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/article95.htm

and for that I am grateful.

That list just makes me want to run an dungeon where the only monsters are monsters that pretend to be mundane objects even more...

Older editions of D&D have a cloying proportion of "Gotcha!" monsters.

[Voss]

Are you actually reading what you're writing? From 15th to 18th level, you expect me to care about +1/+1? The 15th level triceratops is a marginal improvement over the rhino at 6th. (+9 vs +7, 4d8+6 vs... 4d8+5). Go fuck yourself.

I didn't say "it's a huge improvement, you should never consider Land Circle". I Pointed out you missed some marginally better forms - I even started my post by saying "It's a bit better".

Yes... the triceratops being marginally better the the rhino 9 levels later is why the mechanic is shit.

The Allosaurus also has pounce.

So do all the cats. Don't care.

I don't debate that Land Circle is better, and that other classes are better. But I think it's not Land Circle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon Circle, it's more Land Circle > Moon Circle.

Then why the fuck even bring your nitpicky shit up?

We agree on the basic idea, it's just a question of nuance - or would you argue that Moon Circle is total garbage and worse than non-casters?

That's a pretty complicated question, given all the nerfs to spells that infest 5e. (Which means the gulf between casters and noncasters is actually a little smaller, because a lot of save or suck spells have many more escape clauses, and evocations are impressively strictly worse than even 3e.
That said, with exceeding careful spell selection, casters are still better, because they fight with the same bonuses as noncasters, and can cheat with spells.

So, if you're running around being a druid... then no. But you're giving up half your class abilities, and effectively belong to the Circle of Nothing.

But if you're actually running about and joining the melee line to fight in animal form? Then absolutely yes.

You're giving up your spells while you're trapped at peasant AC, and given the way attack bonuses are clustered around +5, you're absolutely going to get your ass shanked out of your animal form in short order, and then be a squishy in stuck in melee. The phantom hit point mechanic exist because everything in the game, starting at CR1/4, absolutely mutilates animals, because they suck defensively. Yes, you probably will kill that first hobgoblin, maybe even the second. Then their buddies are going to drop you like a wasted action.

Of course the real answer is this is a non-conundrum. Be a cleric or bard, have a good AC, be a melee combatant and full caster all at the same time.

Where do you get the CR 3 for elemental form from? Elementals have a fixed CR AFAIK, and that CR is 5. Also, as I mentioned, I see the main use as a defensive form - the list of Resistances and Immunities is pretty good. You could use one of the pokemon catcher spells on your action, then use wild shape as your bonus action and concentrate on the spell for the rest of the fight - making it more likely to last, since you will take less damage.

I honestly see nothing that over-rides the CR limit... but then I'm used to elementals as categories, not as single things.

I suspect you're overthinking the pile of resistances and immunities. They're great on monsters for fucking the party's attacks, but they're much less so on critters, who are going to have set attacks so its pretty much a binary state- they either care about a single immunity or don't care at all. And given how boring 5e monsters are, most are never going to care. They're just going to do X damage with no riders or special effects at all.

I don't even have any idea how 5e deals with monster on monster action when resistance to nonmagical attacks is involved, and suspect the game doesn't either.

But yes, that might be an actual advantage to wildshape once (if) you get to level 10.

But then, you're giving up some actual grade A defensive spells exclusive to several terrain types (or... not being a druid), so you aren't gaining all that much.

Overall, I agree that Shapechange is more powerful - I'd be insane not to. But Wild Shape does have its niches. For example, unlike Shapechange, it can't be dispelled.

Is that a thing 5e monsters do? Is it even effective?
If they're using the Dispel Magic in the book, they'd have to cast dispel as a 9th level spell to do it reliably.... and I don't really see that happening.
Given monster stats, the normal check is going to require a 14+ if they've got a spellcasting stat of 20, which really isn't a given.

[Aharon]

Then why the fuck even bring your nitpicky shit up?

Cause you seemed knowledgable and I was interested in a discussion - maybe glean some insight from it, since in my current group (5e, level 3) we do have a moon druid, but since we're new to 5e, the DM would permit switching - and the druid player might switch.

I suspect you're overthinking the pile of resistances and immunities. They're great on monsters for fucking the party's attacks, but they're much less so on critters, who are going to have set attacks so its pretty much a binary state- they either care about a single immunity or don't care at all. And given how boring 5e monsters are, most are never going to care. They're just going to do X damage with no riders or special effects at all.

Maybe - hasn't shown up in our game so far.

I don't even have any idea how 5e deals with monster on monster action when resistance to nonmagical attacks is involved, and suspect the game doesn't either.

Most creatures' weapons aren't magic/considered magic, those that are (like the weapons angels carry, for example) explicitly say so in the stat block.

Is that a thing 5e monsters do? Is it even effective?
If they're using the Dispel Magic in the book, they'd have to cast dispel as a 9th level spell to do it reliably.... and I don't really see that happening.
Given monster stats, the normal check is going to require a 14+ if they've got a spellcasting stat of 20, which really isn't a given.

Lichs and Archmages could cast dispel magic as a 9th level spell. Out of the book, all creatures that do have dispel magic use it as a 3rd level spell. But 5 CR2 priests casting it on you have a >50% chance of ending the spell.

[Voss]

I suspect you're overthinking the pile of resistances and immunities. They're great on monsters for fucking the party's attacks, but they're much less so on critters, who are going to have set attacks so its pretty much a binary state- they either care about a single immunity or don't care at all. And given how boring 5e monsters are, most are never going to care. They're just going to do X damage with no riders or special effects at all.

Maybe - hasn't shown up in our game so far.

You haven't run into monsters that just do damage? No hobgoblins, skeletons, giants, animals, nothing? Because thats... seriously the majority of 5e monsters. They just pop up out the tall grass and try to rip people's faces off... they close to melee, do a random amount of damage unrelated to their CR and die horribly.

Even Balors don't even do much beyond punch people in the face, except pull them so they can.

I really wish I hadn't looked into this, 5e monsters make me very, very sad.

Lichs and Archmages could cast dispel magic as a 9th level spell. Out of the book, all creatures that do have dispel magic use it as a 3rd level spell. But 5 CR2 priests casting it on you have a >50% chance of ending the spell.

Is that a thing you expect? Dragons and Pit Fiends and whatnot just dragging around chains of CR 2 priests to buff level 18 encounters on the off chance they want to play the odds on getting rid of ongoing spells?

[Kaelik]

I suspect you're overthinking the pile of resistances and immunities. They're great on monsters for fucking the party's attacks, but they're much less so on critters, who are going to have set attacks so its pretty much a binary state- they either care about a single immunity or don't care at all. And given how boring 5e monsters are, most are never going to care. They're just going to do X damage with no riders or special effects at all.

Maybe - hasn't shown up in our game so far.

You haven't run into monsters that just do damage? No hobgoblins, skeletons, giants, animals, nothing? Because thats... seriously the majority of 5e monsters. They just pop up out the tall grass and try to rip people's faces off... they close to melee, do a random amount of damage unrelated to their CR and die horribly.

Even Balors don't even do much beyond punch people in the face, except pull them so they can.

I really wish I hadn't looked into this, 5e monsters make me very, very sad.

Lichs and Archmages could cast dispel magic as a 9th level spell. Out of the book, all creatures that do have dispel magic use it as a 3rd level spell. But 5 CR2 priests casting it on you have a >50% chance of ending the spell.

Is that a thing you expect? Dragons and Pit Fiends and whatnot just dragging around chains of CR 2 priests to buff level 18 encounters on the off chance they want to play the odds on getting rid of ongoing spells?

Think he was agreeing with you that the immunities haven't come up in game yet.

[Aharon]

You haven't run into monsters that just do damage? No hobgoblins, skeletons, giants, animals, nothing? Because thats... seriously the majority of 5e monsters. They just pop up out the tall grass and try to rip people's faces off... they close to melee, do a random amount of damage unrelated to their CR and die horribly.

What Kaelik said - I agree that maybe you are right and I'm overthinking it. Going through the first 24 pages of the MM, the aboleth uses enslave (which works on elementals), the banshee has horrifying visage, and the basilisk a petrifying gaze. That's 3/12 monsters that use stuff other than melee attacks, two of which the elemental form helps against. But I see your point, the vast majority of monsters seems to rely on melee attacks first (and to a great part, only).

Is that a thing you expect? Dragons and Pit Fiends and whatnot just dragging around chains of CR 2 priests to buff level 18 encounters on the off chance they want to play the odds on getting rid of ongoing spells?

Given the design decisions that led to bounded accuracy, I can see that happening - those CR2 priests are supposed to stay threatening, and indeed they could be.
Five of them even the odds, 10 have an 80% chance, 20 have a 95% chance to dispel your spells. And it's not like Shapechange is the only powerful ongoing spell.
Put them behind cover or something similar, and the players have to decide wether they want to deal with those guys first, giving the BBEG a chance to act. It's basically an encounter with the necromancer who has a horde of skeletons, only against the players.

[Neurosis]

I was really seriously considering moving on to D&D 5E from 3.5E, feeling more and more like an out of touch relic, because it really does feel like anyone playing D&D at any kind of quasi-social setting is playing 5E, and I don't want to be completely out of touch from the "meta" (for lack of a better word).

I was also frankly starting to get a bit pissed at D&D 3.5. My main problem with 3.X right now--besides the above sense of feeling like I'm 15 years behind the mainstream, because I totally am--is the almost overwhelming prevalence of "Save or Die" or "Save or Lose" abilities amongst monsters in the basic monster manual(s). Bodaks and basilisks and other bullshit that confront you with at least a 5% chance of turning to stone or dropping fucking dead just for looking at them*. I could ignore all of the monsters that could dead you with one flubbed roll, but that would definitely feel like ignoring a sizable swath of D&D. I also don't regard the implementation of CR in 3.5 (in general) as favorably as most around here.

So my question is: if D&D 5E isn't worth jumping into with both feet, is there anything worth salvaging from it and transplanting into 3.X? Besides the things that are obviously good ideas and were obviously good ideas a decade ago, I mean, like collapsing Listen and Spot into one skill called Perception and the same for Hide and Move Silently being collapsed into Sneak.

*Possibly useful additional information: in these sad times in my life (and, let's be honest, kinda sad times for the world too) it's as true often as not that there is only one player at my table. When there is only one player, it is true as often as not there's only one character being controlled (although this isn't always the case).

[Whipstitch]

Nope.

[Voss]

the almost overwhelming prevalence of "Save or Die" or "Save or Lose" abilities amongst monsters in the basic monster manual(s). Bodaks and basilisks and other bullshit that confront you with at least a 5% chance of turning to stone or dropping fucking dead just for looking at them*. I could ignore all of the monsters that could dead you with one flubbed roll, but that would definitely feel like ignoring a sizable swath of D&D.

Be thankful you get a roll. This was actually an improvement from 2nd, where 'you make eye contact, go fuck yourself' was actually a thing.

I also don't regard the implementation of CR in 3.5 (in general) as favorably as most around here.

Some things are completely off. Most around here admit that. However, most critters are at least in the right area, which is absolutely NOT true for 5th.

So my question is: if D&D 5E isn't worth jumping into with both feet, is there anything worth salvaging from it and transplanting into 3.X?

Not really. Many of the changes are outright terrible (like individual saving throws for each stat, even though most stats barely if ever come up (I checked at one point, and I think Int saves came up for 6 individual spells and abilities. Not types of spells and abilities but actually individual ones). Even some of the 4e ideas that survived and were not-terrible-but-lacking-in-execution were fucked in 5e.

They doubled down again on specific class-race combinations, which is even vitally more important because of the tyranny of 'bounded accuracy.' if you fall behind in your attack stat, you will remain behind until at least 12th level, and have to push defenses down for even longer.

The most positive thing I can say is bards aren't gimped. However, I don't really like bards as concepts (anyone can pick up an instrument and try to be good at it, and musical magic strikes me more as flavor than a mechanic), and making them full casters that are either more better wizards (barring necromancers) or full casters and excellent melee combatants was overindulging more than a little.


For random gamers that just play casually and don't overanalyze things, the complaint I heard repeatedly is simple that 5e is missing 'something.' It just, apparently lacks something they expect in an RPG and feels static.


Short version: even though 4e is a shitty boardgame and you have to fake the RPG elements, it has more concepts worth stealing than 5e. 5e brings too much of 2e back, but with even less depth and ability to cope with non-combat time.

[John Magnum]

From my experience playing 5e, its combat system is basically 3.5e except the spells are mostly shittier and the rest of its rules don't exist in any concrete form whatsoever. It's kind of hard to understand just how nonexistent the skill system is. There's no DCs for anything, there's no specific things any of your skills can do, it's literally just "Your DM may call for a check in the following general kind of scenario" for every fucking skill, where "a check" is at whatever DC the DM pulls out of their ass that moment. There's so little content to 5e that I'm not sure what there is to steal.

[Dogbert]

So my question is: if D&D 5E isn't worth jumping into with both feet, is there anything worth salvaging from it and transplanting into 3.X?

Backgrounds are by far and large 5E's best feature (or its only good one), so is the clear division of tiers (saying you wanna go the route of M&M and say "I'm running an Adventurer-Tier game, so starts at lvl 5 and can't go any farther than 7, don't worry, no PL20 monsters").

Personally I like the paths, but you'll probably find Pathfinder's Archetypes more palatable (plus, they're already there, no adaptation work needed on your part).

Inspiration is so laughably vague and poorly worded that, if you want metagame currency, you'll be better off just ripping M&M Complications and Hero Points system.

TL;DR: Cannibalize the Backgrounds' system.

[OgreBattle]

They have a good amount of new, generic realistic-ish artwork that aren't covered in assymetric dungeonplate that you can use to stick in your "here is my own 3.X class..." wiki entries.

For me 4e (with a lot of fan fixes and houserules discussed here) is still the more interesting basic mechanics to draw inspiration from.

[Chamomile]

I consider the lack of skill points to be a good feature. The granularity granted by skill points wasn't worth the increase in complexity. Trained/untrained is a much better distinction. Of course, the actual math on trained skills in D&D 5e is pretty unsatisfying for how long it takes before your guy's best skills are better than your party member's dump stat in the same area, and 4e had the trained/untrained system (plus a better skill list) first.

Chargen in 5e is a little quicker overall and much easier to explain to a newcomer. Other than the difference between ability scores and ability modifiers, there's nothing that's hard to explain to a first time player, even ones with only a passing familiarity with computer RPGs. Choosing X number of skills off a list to be good at is easy because the name of the skill and the concept of trained versus untrained are both intuitive (although people may expect to be actually significantly good at what they're trained in, even though the starting proficiency bonus is so measly that you can't really tell the difference between trained and untrained going by results alone - that's a different issue, though), whereas asking someone to invest skill points for a system when the worth of having 3 points instead of 2 is completely unclear to new players, and it's where a lot of people tend to start wondering what kind of clusterfuck they've gotten themselves into.

Backgrounds are good for the same reason. In 5e they're underutilized because all they do is provide an extra skill or two and some random junk you don't care about, plus some roleplay hooks for your character's personality. The latter are nice for new players who've roleplayed little or not at all and could use some guidelines for how to play a character as opposed to a video game avatar or just playing someone exactly like themselves, but there's a lot of other ways to solve that problem and backgrounds aren't the best place to do it. They're better than what previous editions of D&D have offered, which is nothing, but White Wolf games did it better. There's even a Willpower-esque refreshable resource you could hang on it in the form of inspiration.

The main benefit to backgrounds is their ability to bundle together choices that aren't a part of race or class, and for 3.X that means feats. Instead of tossing people in the deep end of a feat list dozens of entries long (without even getting into expansion material, which you will want to be using if you want your feats to be worth anything in 3.X), you can ask them to pick a background and have that background provide 3-5 feats to pick from. Feats are on/off toggles which makes them easier for new players to figure out than skills, but they're not something you can pick just by asking yourself "what kind of guy do I want to play," which is all that first time players have to go on. Unless they happen to be really good at analyzing systems in general, they are not going to realize the implications of a +2 to X skill in Y circumstance or being able to perform Z action as a swift action instead of a standard.

Anyone can feel like they're making an informed choice when being asked to pick between the Street Rat and Noble backgrounds, though. Being able to give new players a long list of backgrounds whose implications they can at least partially intuit, and then a very small number of feats whose mechanical effects they can read and understand because there's so few of them which makes it easy to study each of them in detail, is much less discouraging than just throwing the entire Feats chapter at them. Even if they're not making perfectly optimized characters, they will be making playably good characters and when they finish that character they will be thinking "I can't wait to go on adventures with this guy I made" instead of "thank God that's over, I hope the fun part comes soon."

[amethal]

So my question is: if D&D 5E isn't worth jumping into with both feet, is there anything worth salvaging from it and transplanting into 3.X?

Anecdotally, what the two 5th edition players I know liked about it was the lack of complexity. I think they found it restful (for want of a better word) after playing lots of Pathfinder.

So that would imply there's nothing worth stealing, since its main attribute is what it doesn't have. (For example, I have had "There is no power attack" quoted to me as a design improvement.) They did seem to like the advantage / disadvantage mechanic but I can't think of anything else that was actually in the game that they liked.

Both of those 5th edition groups are now playing something else (although in fairness one of those groups doesn't tend to stick with the same thing for very long).

[shinimasu]

So my question is: if D&D 5E isn't worth jumping into with both feet, is there anything worth salvaging from it and transplanting into 3.X?

The way they do feats. I remember playing both 3.5 and 4e and both games had pages upon pages of available across several different books. The only way to not fall into a trap option was to either waste several hours reading and comparing all of them, or look up a class building guide online. Honestly the only way selecting a feat wasn't going to take way too much fucking time was to already know which ones you wanted.

5e has far fewer feats but more importantly each feat has a concrete design goal. Namely that whatever thing the feat lets you do should be roughly equal to getting a +2 in one of your stats. That way if you don't find a feat you like you can take a +2 and not feel cheated, but if you take the feat you're not missing the attribute bump either. I'm not going to bullshit you and say all the feats succeeded at this, but it's still a good design goal to have.

[Voss]

Unfortunately, the correct answer to

Namely that whatever thing the feat lets you do should be roughly equal to getting a +2 in one of your stats.

is 'none of them,' at least not until level 8 (for fighters), or 12 (for pretty much everyone else). And pushing one of the meager handful of customization points off until when you probably aren't playing anymore is a fucking terrible idea.

With a couple of exceptions, most of which involves setting up an odd number at character creation (specifically a 17, which requires certain races and specific class combinations), and taking a feat that bumps a stat by one and does something else.

One of the few good options for this is 'moderately armored,' which gives medium armor and shield proficiency, which can be a huge AC bump* if you're stuck in light armor, and don't (or can't afford to) max dex out. But you have to have light armor proficiency already, which means it's only useful for rogues and warlocks, and bards that don't intend to have an extra attack.

*the AC bump is pretty non-trivial given 5e math. A lightly armored character that doesn't max Dex will get shit on a lot, with an AC of 12-14. Assuming +2 from Dex, medium armor and shield will jump to AC 19 before magic.

But that's honestly not a decision that should wait until fucking level 4.

[shinimasu]

I was counting the ones that give you a +1 bump because if you're following the idea that the highest a character can go at creation before racial is 16, then you probably do have at least two stats at 15 and 17 respectively. Agreeing with waiting until level 4 is dumb. The game being designed to start at level 3 is also dumb. No one seems to remember it anyway so you're plodding through two boring levels where no one has their class features, one level where everyone finally gets their class features, and then one level where you finally get your first feat.

[Username17]

Giving players the choice between getting a raw number bonus and some kind of actual ability or unique signifier is awful. It goes beyond awful. That is literally the worst. You cannot make rpg design worse than that. That is the 4e math fix feats. They were horrible. Hardcoding that every feat you every take is 'or a math fix feat' is fucking awful. It's the worst. Literally actually the worst. You cannot create or even imagine a feat paradigm worse than 5e's. It's not even possible to make something more shitty and corrosive than what 5e comes with out of the box.

-Username17

[Niles]

You cannot create or even imagine a feat paradigm worse than 5e's.

And yet their saving throw system is still shittier.

[shinimasu]

I'm not saying 5e's feats are good (though I've also never experienced my actual skin melting off and snakes physically manifesting in my home either. Mostly just kind of meh?) but that the design goal of "A feat should be equivalent to X in terms of power and utility where X what you give up to get the feat" isn't by itself a terrible. And sometimes you need the utility of a feat more than you needed the straight number bonus. I have a 15 and a 17. I'm at 4th level. I can take my numerical bonus and turn the hanging numbers into a 16 and 18. I can take a feat, turn the 15 into a 16, and get a utility that is potentially useful to my character. Or I take a feat, bump up the 17 to an 18 and get a utility. Or I don't bump any numbers and get a pure utility feat that is (theoretically) about as useful as the straight number bump.

5es feets are not well written and don't succeed when it comes to "is this as useful as the +2" but I appreciate what they were trying to do because 3.5s endless feat lists were a chore to read and really did need to be trimmed. I get exhausted just looking at them.

[Chamomile]

Just because 3.X had way the Hell too many feats doesn't mean that having feats be interchangeable with a +2 to an ability is somehow a solution. The reason why 5e's feats are more navigable than 3e's is because there is a smaller number of them, and also you don't actually want to take more than a tiny handful of them, and those in rare circumstances, so for most players in most situations the feats actually don't even exist and you just take your ability score increases.

[Voss]

I was counting the ones that give you a +1 bump because if you're following the idea that the highest a character can go at creation before racial is 16, then you probably do have at least two stats at 15 and 17 respectively.

Highest (with point buy, which is the only sane thing worth talking about) is 15, not 16.

But yeah, sure. You can totally do a 17 and 15. And at 4th level you make them 18/16 and you don't take a fucking feat. Then at 8th, you turn that 18 into a 20. Maybe then (which is to say, 12th level) you consider taking feats, but honestly raising your AC (dex & saves) or Con (hp & saves) or even Wisdom (for the shitload of saves that actually target this stat) is probably a better plan.

5e gives you so few opportunities to affect your character that you have to maximize on the rare occasion it is actually possible. Knowing which way is north and when the sun comes up or getting 4 weapon proficiencies just doesn't rate.


The problem with the +1 & effect feats is they are absurdly specialized, and they either don't affect stats you care about or give you proficiencies you already have. Or, like Actor or Linguist, give you shit that doesn't matter since it doesn't really interact with the game rules. Knowing a boatload of languages is neat flavor thing, but spending feats, that is to say, spending ability score bonuses on it is fucking crazy talk.

[Username17]

The point is that setting your feats to be equal to a boring math fix bonus would be horrible even if that had succeeded. Especially if that had succeeded. Telling players that they could just as easily take completely flavorless numeric bonuses instead of having any personally identifiable traits is fucking horrible. Completely flavorless math fix bonuses should never be on the menu because they are fucking cancer. Making them the default option is the worst possible design choice.

-Username17