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

[Erechel]

I think that there are "soft" feats and "hard" feats. Soft ones are the features that make your player to make something better than average, and provide an example of how it could work without the feat. Hard ones are the features that cover things that a player couldn't possibly attempt without a specific feature. There is no beef between the two of them, if they are used right.
An example of each one of them:

Ritual Caster: Hard feat. You can't use ritual magic without a proper feature or training, and you can also add new spells!
Skulker: Soft feat. You can do better something that usually requires a skill check: your success is automatic.

The problem isn't that soft feats and hard feats exist. Hard feats put a limit on what a player could try within the fantasy world. And that's a good thing: there are some people that could do things that you can't, and there are things that are just impossible.

The problem comes when you codify Hard Feats for things that anyone could theoretically try; say, when you stablish a feat tax for something entirely plausible. Let's say, for example, using dirty tricks like launching sand to the eyes of the oponent. A proper way to build something like that would be a soft feat: you could use a dirty trick as a bonus action, or you have advantage on dirty tricks. If the only way you could even try to use a dirty trick were via feat, you are severely hampering player creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. This was pretty much a problem for a few prior editions, happily solved in this one.

 

[Erechel]

This might just be a case of picking a bad example, but this stood out to me.
The battlemaster gets to do it as part of an attack. Another character trying would at best get to do it in place of an attack (more likely as an action).

And don't you forget that it also adds 1d8 damage while disarming. Far better than a normal attack.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Far better in my view is for DMs to do what the rules already tell us to do: "Your DM will tell you how you can earn Inspiration in the game." Then players can go and do that.

I wouldn't even object to Paul Farquhar's criteria as long as it was made clear what kind of inspiring speech I'd have to portray to earn Inspiration, even though we have different ideas of what the word "roleplaying" means.

Seeing as Inspiration is a new concept and a dismal failure I dont agree that the best solution is for DMs to do what the rules say because we all have plenty of evidence that it does not happen.

 

[iserith]

Seeing as Inspiration is a new concept and a dismal failure I dont agree that the best solution is for DMs to do what the rules say because we all have plenty of evidence that it does not happen.

We have anecdotal evidence, myself included, that plenty of DMs don't follow the rules. That hardly makes Inspiration a "dismal failure" in my view. It works great in my games. The rules told me "Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way..." and "Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game." So I told my players how they could earn Inspiration by doing those things and it works. Imagine that!

"To referee the rules, you need to know them." - DMG, page 5.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

We have anecdotal evidence, myself included, that plenty of DMs don't follow the rules. That hardly makes Inspiration a "dismal failure" in my view. It works great in my games. The rules told me "Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way..." and "Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game." So I told my players how they could earn Inspiration by doing those things and it works. Imagine that!

"To referee the rules, you need to know them." - DMG, page 5.

You just dont get it. So nevermind.

 

[Mistwell]

Seeing as Inspiration is a new concept and a dismal failure I dont agree that the best solution is for DMs to do what the rules say because we all have plenty of evidence that it does not happen.

What the heck are you talking about? We love Inspiration and use it every session! I've seen it used to great effect in the streaming sessions that are so popular and attracting so many new players, and during AL sessions at multiple locations.

You just dont get it. So nevermind.

Yeah, he doesn't get it, nor do I, because you have not supported your position in any way. And when challenged you were still unable and unwilling to support your position and are now acting like you fleeing the interview is justified by...reasons?

 

[Hussar]

We're a bit hit and miss for inspiration. I know that when I DM, I really, really need to up my game and award it more often. It just tends to get forgotten.

The main issue with inspiration though, like a lot of fuzzy, DM arbitrated rules, is that the DM has so many plates in the air, it's easy to forget. The DM isn't deliberately short changing anyone, it's just that it can be hard to remember, "oh, hey, yeah, this character has that trait, so, he or she should get inspiration for doing that thing". I mean, good grief, I have enough trouble remembering the names of the characters my players play, so, trying to remember that Bob has Trait X is often very far down on the list.

Which is, honestly, why I don't see inspiration as a good replacement for feats for rewarding play. With feats, it puts the onus on the player to deal with it. You want your character to be especially tough? Good, take a feat that bumps your HP. Don't expect me, as DM, with four other people around the table plus my own NPC's and whatnot to deal with, to remember that three months ago you told me that your character was a "tough guy" and you should be getting inspiration for playing that up.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Acting = playing a role = roleplaying.

Same things.

 

[5ekyu]

Acting = playing a role = roleplaying.

Same things.

False, within the context of RPGs at least.

Role-playing is playing your character, making decisions based on the character's viewpoint and in-game-world elements as opposed to or contrasted with making those decisions based on player knowledge and outside the in-game-world elements.

Acting out those decisions IRL that your character is doing is a wholly different thing and is not normally required by role-playing. game mechanics can handle the resolution stages and narration is sufficient for the descriptive elements as the standard assumption for role-playing. But actually "performing" in person IRL is not normally at all a part of the thing called role-playing.

Your character can be strong anf flip a table without you doing so to your gaming table - acting.
Your character can swing a sword of cast heal spells without you acting those things out.
Your character can give a rousing speech to inspire troops and all that assumes without you giving such a rousing speech IRl.

and all of those can then be resolved with the specific game's rules.

I myself try to always keep character specifics in mind when "tasks" are attempted in game and i do not normally let the player's "performance skills" have any weight at all - although there are edge cases.

So, a player giving some rousing speech in his own irl persona is fine... and if it is a cool scene that fosters good outcomes i might give that some meta-game token (like inspiration if that is used) that we use for "oh cool" within the system *or* i might give it some story-based edge that comes into play as a more "personal" reward... not talking temporary hit points or advantage on first rounds or first morale checks or whatever but more like after events the speech is remembered and a degree of fame or renown gets tagged to that character (for better and for ill.) The *player* added flavor and cool and so they get flavor and cool after for it - not *more plusses*. "More plusses" comes from character capabilities and performance... at least for me.

But of course that does vary a bit with the rules in play and the system being used. have definitely played games where the aspect of taking "player cool" into "in game action" in a more direct way is more a hard coded thing - swashbuckling or toon for instance.

 

[jasper]

.......

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.

...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA my players were uber. Sept 1980 I just didn't know they were playing 3E.
Sorry Saelorn I seen this happen way back when my hair line was progressing not receding.