D&D 5E Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?

[Ovinomancer]

Well, if a player did that in the game I DM, I would make them actually give the speech, and only reward them with inspiration if it was genuinely inspiring.

That's not roleplaying, though, that's acting.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I have no strong feelings about the feat either way. I'm just saying that Inspiration already exists for incentivizing just this sort of thing - and it's not billed as optional rule. Though many DMs in my experience seem to treat it as such, even if they think the optional feats rules are a must-have.

I would also add that, much like the feat, there is nothing about Inspiration that requires a player to actually make an inspiring speech. He or she need only state the goal and approach e.g. "I make an inspiring speech to lift the spirits of my comrades before the looming battle." Though DMs vary on when they award it, typically, it's awarded when playing to personal characteristics. If one of the character's personal characteristics has something to do with making inspiring speeches, then stating the aforementioned goal and approach is sufficient to fish for Inspiration.

My thesis for having tangible rewards with these feats has been that you do have variable DM reactions. Being explicit with rewards means both the player and DM understand the consequences of using them. It's up to the DM to explain why a reward is not granted, if they decide not too give one, rather than a player continually trying to garner a benefit from using a given skill, etc.

 

[iserith]

I do not have my characters Charisma nor his speech making skills. If you want to give inspiring speeches that rouse everyone around you then you take the feat. You do not get to give yourself a skill or talent just by writing it conveniently into your character background.

This is the perfect example of someone trying to min-max their character and grant themselves more than one character should have.

Right, you shouldn't have to give inspiring speeches in my view to gain the benefit of the feat or Inspiration. You just have to say that's what you're doing and, in the latter case, have the thing you're doing be noted in your personal characteristics already. One could give an inspiring speech and that would be lovely and no doubt entertaining for everyone at the table. But in terms of the benefit, it's no different than just stating a goal and approach.

I'm not sure what you mean about "trying to min-max their character" or "grant themselves more than one character should have."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Feats do allow existing rules to be bypassed that caused some character concepts to be sucky without actually having to fix the sucky rule in the first place. Example: A crossbow user and part of crossbow expertise that allows you to load more than once a turn.

Even conceptually, you could still play a "skilled crossbow-user" by using the Rogue class as the base, and focusing on vulnerable targets. The feat allows you to play that concept using the Fighter class as a base, but it's still pretty much the same character, especially since you're going to be wearing light armor either way. If I show you a picture of a crossbow-wielding character, you can't tell from looking whether it's a Fighter with a feat or a Rogue without a feat.

 

[iserith]

My thesis for having tangible rewards with these feats has been that you do have variable DM reactions. Being explicit with rewards means both the player and DM understand the consequences of using them. It's up to the DM to explain why a reward is not granted, if they decide not too give one, rather than a player continually trying to garner a benefit from using a given skill, etc.

Sure, and that's probably why the rules say "Your DM will tell you how you can earn Inspiration in the game." That way a player can plan accordingly. A DM that is sufficiently explicit and consistent will be as good in my view as a feat written in a book.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Bit late to the party, it seems, so the discussion may have moved on, but here are my 2 copper pieces.

Slowly, I am starting to see their point. I am starting to think the more rules you have, the less freedom and creativity the player's have under the illusion they have more "options" which were almost always options they had if they could think of it in the situation.

My problem with this is that it presumes the point you're making: rules restrict desirable behavior. But only some rules do that. If all rules restricted desirable behavior, we would all run completely rules-free games, because there would be no system that didn't restrict desirable behavior except "no system at all." So, clearly, there must be some kind of line, where *un*desirable behavior is restricted, but desirable behavior isn't. Ergo, some rules may go too far, but not all rules, and we must evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

I will provide some examples.

Actor Feat <snip>

This seems pretty emblematic of a concern you have in every case, so I will only address it once, but know that it applies in every symmetrical case: you fear restricting extemporaneous behavior, because you have interpreted that "since X allows Y, it must be the case that not having X disallows Y." What part of the text leads you to believe this is the case? I admit I have not read the DMG as closely as I should (since I'm not really interested in running it), but I know of nothing in either the PHB nor DMG which says this is the case. Why can't feats be a sufficient condition for their effects, rather than being a necessary one? That is, why can't there be multiple paths to the same thing? To whit: having the Actor feat guarantees that you can make a Cha(Deception) check, contested by Wis(Insight), regardless of situation. They're trained to do it, so they can do it on command. Someone who isn't trained? Maybe they're just good with voices. Maybe it's just a raw Charisma check. Maybe it's exactly the same, but the person being deceived gets Advantage. Maybe the deceiver needs to spin me a tale of how it is they can mimic this particular person's voice well enough to pass a reasonable fraction of the time (real voice mimicry being quite hard).

To put it simply: you yourself said, "wouldn't it be natural for a DM to tell Player Y they cannot try that[...]?" No, it's not natural to simply say no. If it's a hasty, off-the-wall plan with no preparation, no justification, and no effort to make it work, maybe then you say no, sorry, you don't have the feat. Feats merely guarantee access/effect (if any conditions therein are met). They don't suddenly limit improvisation. This is the reverse side of exception-based design; the obverse is that when the rules say things work like X, specific rules may contradict that, and specific beats general, while the reverse is that just because a specific rule exists you cannot conclude that the general rule is in contradiction to it.

Inspiring Leader <snip>
Without this feat in the game, if a Player makes a very inspiring speech

Stop there. *If* the player has, in fact, made a very inspiring speech? That's all that's required to get a mechanical effect. If you are so desperately afraid of stepping on the feat-having-player's toes, give a different effect instead. (For example, given the name, you could have everyone get one free use of Inspiration, in addition to the normal one they may or may not have, which has to be spent during the "scene" for which they've been inspired.) The player who has the feat still gets their guaranteed access, and the other player gets rewarded for a positive, and impressive, contribution.

Keen Mind: <snip>

Nothing new here, really. Though I should note that it's pretty blatantly clear that the Keen Mind feat's environmental effects are supposed to be (a) automatic (see the trend? automatic vs. having to roll a check/needing to "sell me on" the plan?) and (b) used when you shouldn't know these things just by looking, e.g. when you're deep underground. The best-trained huntsman isn't going to know north from south in a natural cave when it's been three days since he's seen the sun, unless he can clearly remember the path and the orientation the group started with. I would call that a difficult but not impossible Wisdom check, potentially with Proficiency if the player can justify it. Or, with the feat, you just know, no questions asked. (Well, other than, "Hey, Zeke, which way is North?")

Linguist: <snip>

Nothing to see here, same responses as above.

Mounted Combat:

Now this one is actually interesting (beyond the repeated "auto vs. roll/persuade me"). Because I know, from a limited amount of personal experience, that riding animals is not easy without training. You can do it, but it's risky. Riding animals into combat is dramatically more difficult than that, and an animal must be very heavily trained to not go completely out of its gourd in combat. So, for me, this really comes down to: "You're trying to do something extremely difficult without training. Or do you have some reason to know how to handle an animal? What are you doing to manage your mount's behavior?"

This actually reminds me of a thing from 13A rules discussion, but sort of going in the opposite direction. 13A has freeform "backgrounds" instead of skills, which apply whenever it's appropriate. Some DMs struggle with them, because a background like "Secret Agent" can very easily become just a grab-bag of doing anything because the player can invent a backstory on the spot to justify it. This can seem unfair if the other players aren't as light on their feet, mentally; in essence, it's a practical example of actually letting the "featless" run roughshod over those who "spent the feat" in some sense or other. And the simple answer is: you have to set limits for improvisation, because it's not desirable to allow 100% of all proposed improvisational actions/stunts/off-the-wall ideas. Sometimes, a plan is just bad, or just doesn't make sense in context, and it's perfectly fine to Just Say No. A player spends a feat on something in order to lay down more precise rules for when it is and isn't okay to Just Say No. Those who do not are, implicitly, accepting the responsibility to find real, consistent, consensus-fitting justifications for whenever they do something that they aren't guaranteed to be able to do. If they cannot provide those justifications--whether it takes the form of "you explained your plan and I agree it makes sense," "you told us why this is a thing you're capable of," or "you did the work, whether as a player or a character, to make it happen"--then I am under no obligation whatsoever to approve the Wacky Shenanigans. I should be gentle, and try to re-direct any genuine enthusiasm toward plans which are actually possible in my eyes, but beyond "providing a fun experience," I am under no obligation to agree to any specific player proposal. Heck, even feats might not always apply, if a different exception takes precedence (e.g. for Mounted Combat, "The kraken's tentacle is already attacking BOTH you AND your mount; you can't force both attacks to be at you, because you're already being attacked." Perfectly reasonable, and while the player may feel put out by it, these limitations are just as appropriate as limitations on improvisational thinking.)

Skulker

Guaranteed effect (avoiding detection) vs. player must justify, as usual.

What do you think? Have you seen this concept in your game? Think I am completely off base? Something in between?

I have never seen a person get denied the ability to do some particular improvisational thing solely because they lacked a feat, in any game--not even 3e, the king of "anything not expressly permitted is forbidden" design. I've seen, for instance, "You can't use this weapon effectively because you don't know how to wield it; it might be a sharp sword, but for you it's no better than a club." I've never seen someone who had a feat that granted some special effect feel slighted because someone else had the opportunity to get the same or similar effect as a result of some other thing (like giving an inspirational speech vs. having a "you give inspirational speeches" thing).

I have never seen anyone upset because a fellow-player got an automatic success when other people had to roll, and in fact have seen exactly the opposite (in 4e, no less, where feats abound). My group was trying to persuade a genius tech CEO to come with us, sans bodyguards, to a secret location to meet with our hidden benefactor in order to get said benefactor to help us save someone we had failed to save ourselves (we were too low-level to cast Raise Dead). My character, the in-setting equivalent of a Paladin, spoke with full honesty; he hates lying, and figured if this guy didn't like the truth, there was little point in trying to sugar-coat it. I expected to need to roll Diplomacy, but the DM, of fairly old-school persuasion, just said, "He looks at you and nods. That's a success. No roll needed." The group was surprised but pleased that I was able to do that--even the party Bard, who had no less silver a tongue than my Paladin and probably more of one. If anything, she was relieved that she didn't have to lie or embellish the truth either. (Only our [strike]shaman[/strike] dronesmith was particularly fond of flexibility with the facts, and even then, pretty much only with people we didn't like or couldn't trust.)

Long story short, I think you are overblowing fears of stepping on toes, under-estimating the impact of actually (and consistently) requiring explanation/justification/build-up/resource-expenditure to get an effect that a feat "guarantees" (assuming there isn't a mitigating factor that would prevent the effect either way), and inserting a requirement into the rules that isn't present. I also think you're severely under-valuing the benefits feats provide to players who struggle with on-the-spot improvisational thinking. I consider myself fairly clever, and I still run into issues of "DUH! Why didn't I do X??? I *should* have!" Knowing you have the Actor feat can embolden a player to do things they might have otherwise avoided, or never even considered, and no amount of experience is guaranteed to make a shy/deliberative player become outgoing/spontaneous.

TL;DR: Exception-based design. "If you have X, you can do Y" =/= "if you don't have X, you can't do Y." Instead, only conclude, "Y can be done, even if the rules generally say no; X allows it, but maybe other stuff does too."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well that’s a false dichotomy if I’ve ever heard one. Making characters is an essential part of a roleplaying game.

It's a part of some roleplaying games. Not every RPG includes character creation as a mandatory component. Moreover, the roleplaying aspect of the game - the actual game in RPG - takes place entirely after everyone meets in the tavern (or whatever). Character generation is more like world-building or other pre-game preparation. How you come about your character stats, be it through an elaborate mini-game or random rolls or pre-gens, is entirely irrelevant to how you play that character.

If you’re not using Feats, then your first two ASIs aren’t actually decision points because there’s a “right” choice. Your first two ASIs go into your class’s primary ability score, or else you’re taking a trap option. With Feats, it can actually be a meaningful choice. Do you increase your Dexterity to 18, or do you take Sharpshooter? That is actually a meaningful decision.

If you're using feats, then there are often more automatic decisions than if you aren't. If you have a greatsword, then all of your choices are made for you until such point that you have maximum Strength and the Great Weapon Master feat. If you aren't using feats, then you get to diversify as soon as you have maximum Strength.

Moreover, since there are so few feats that are actually comparable to having +2 in your main stat, it means that some character concepts get more of a benefit from them than other concepts. If you have a character concept that benefits from two top-tier feats, then you eventually wind up with the equivalent of a 24 in your main stat. If your character concept doesn't align with the good feats, then you stop really improving when your main stat hits 20. If you don't allow the option of feats, then every character ends up equally powerful with just the 20 in their primary stat, and then they get to diversify in interesting ways.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a part of some roleplaying games. Not every RPG includes character creation as a mandatory component.

You can’t roleplay without a character. Roleplaying is imagining yourself as another person and/or in another scenario and making decisions as you think you or that person would in that scenario. Not all roleplaying games involve detailed character statistics, but all roleplaying, game or otherwise, requires characters.

Moreover, the roleplaying aspect of the game - the actual game in RPG

No, roleplaying is the roleplaying in RPG. The game in RPG is game. RPGs are games that involve roleplaying. It’s not an RPG without both roleplaying and game mechanics. Otherwise it’s just roleplaying. Nothing wrong with roleplaying for fun, but the roleplaying is not the entirety of the game in an RPG, it is an aspect of the game. An important aspect to be sure.

- takes place entirely after everyone meets in the tavern (or whatever). Character generation is more like world-building or other pre-game preparation. How you come about your character stats, be it through an elaborate mini-game or random rolls or pre-gens, is entirely irrelevant to how you play that character.

Yes...? I don’t understand how this statement is in any way a counter-argument to what I said in the post you quoted.

If you're using feats, then there are often more automatic decisions than if you aren't. If you have a greatsword, then all of your choices are made for you until such point that you have maximum Strength and the Great Weapon Master feat. If you aren't using feats, then you get to diversify as soon as you have maximum Strength.

Sure, if your only goal is to maximize damage per round output. That is not my goal. When you have the option of taking a Feat or an ability score increase, there are several valid options. Prioritizing damage per round output is one option. Another is giving yourself more options for things to do with your action in combat, in which case Feats like Magic Initiate might be better for your goals than an ability score increase. You might prioritize defense, in which case armor training and mastery might be the best options for you. When you only have the option of which ability score to increase, there is no room to decide your priorities. They all just add bonuses to rolls and maybe go into calculating a derived trait. The correct answer is to always take the boost in the ability your class benefits from the most.

Moreover, since there are so few feats that are actually comparable to having +2 in your main stat, it means that some character concepts get more of a benefit from them than other concepts. If you have a character concept that benefits from two top-tier feats, then you eventually wind up with the equivalent of a 24 in your main stat. If your character concept doesn't align with the good feats, then you stop really improving when your main stat hits 20. If you don't allow the option of feats, then every character ends up equally powerful with just the 20 in their primary stat, and then they get to diversify in interesting ways.

This is all character optimization bologna. I don’t care about that. I care about what a character is capable of. Ability Score increases don’t expand character’s capabilities, they only increase the numbers on things they are already capable of. “Do I choose a new capability or do I choose to get better at the things I am already capable of?” is a meaningful choice. “Which Ability Score do I increase to improve my existing capabilities the most?” is a math problem, and not a hard one.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I'm not sure what you mean about "trying to min-max their character" or "grant themselves more than one character should have."

When a player tries to give their character some ability or benefit that exists in the rules not buy expending a a feat slot or level or background by writing it into their characters personal history. It is the player who completely maxes their character for combat then tries to get the party bard to do everything up to and including ordering beers for him.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You can’t roleplay without a character. Roleplaying is imagining yourself as another person and/or in another scenario and making decisions as you think you or that person would in that scenario. Not all roleplaying games involve detailed character statistics, but all roleplaying, game or otherwise, requires characters.

The underlying point in the post you were originally quoting is that you don't need to build a character in order to play a character. If all you had was a pre-gen Fighter with 17/13/15/10/12/8 stats, you could play that character exactly as well as if you had spent an hour with all of the rulebooks and built something from scratch.

One alarming trend, which more-or-less started in third edition and continued through fourth edition and Pathfinder, is that the character generation mini-game receives an inordinate amount of attention relative to actually playing the game at the table. Some players become obsessed with building interesting and/or powerful characters, which they may not even get a chance to play, but they still spend hours just putting it together. And all of that - the character generation mini-game - is entirely irrelevant to the actual game where you're role-playing the character and deciding what they'll do at that moment.

If you replaced that whole mini-game with a handful of pre-gens, or even if you just didn't go out of your way to add in extra complexity via things like feats and multi-classing, you could spend more of your time on just playing instead of worrying about redundant mechanical differentiation.

Sure, if your only goal is to maximize damage per round output. That is not my goal. When you have the option of taking a Feat or an ability score increase, there are several valid options.
[...]
This is all character optimization bologna. I don’t care about that.

No, you don't have several valid options. To use your own terminology, you have a small number of correct choices, and then you have trap options. If you care about optimization, then adding feats reduces your available choices, because more of your nominal decision points must go toward optimization; if you care about optimization, and you don't have feats, then you're free to put points into Charisma or Intelligence or whatever and it's not a trap because you aren't really losing out on anything significant.

If you don't care about optimization, then you were always free to put points into Charisma from the start. The only thing you lose out on, in a game without feats, is the very small number of feats which actually increase your concept space. (See earlier posts, detailing how new mechanics rarely expand concept space.)