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

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah. Because who cares about being mechanically effective? Who cares if the player's high concept fire wizard is rendered COMPELETLY USELESS because the adventure has taken the party to the elemental plane of fire?

And crossbow expert. Sure, if the game mechanics ruled that anyone can reload a crossbow several times in less than six seconds (a RL modern crossbow takes around 30 seconds, one with a windlass takes several minutes), and having someone at close range could never interfere with you ability to fire, then there would be no need for the feat. D&D isn't a simulation, but there comes a point where some degree of simulation is necessary in order to make suspension of disbelief possible. Besides, if crossbows where that effective, no one would ever use a sword. What the feat does is enable a hero to be uniquely, superhumanly good with the crossbow. D&D player characters are superheroes, and Feats represent that ability to be superhumanly good at something - perhaps in a surprising area.

Speech Mimicry? No as DM I wouldn't rule it impossible. But I would rule it very very difficult for a character who doesn't have some kind of bordering-on-superhuman aptitude for it. There is a big difference between DC 25 (and it would be DC 25 with or without the existence of the feat) and automatic success. But I don't limit feats to their mechanical effects. Being a phenomenally gifted ACTOR will have roleplaying effects as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, no I couldn't. It turned out, just by chance, that my sword and board fighter and the sword and board paladin had virtually identical stats. Both dump statted Dex, high Con, so on and so forth. The two characters were as close as could be.

So, we had identical HP. It doesn't make any sense that I claim that my character is "tough" when the guy standing next to me, who isn't making that claim, is exactly the same. What does "tough" mean when there's no actual difference between two characters. I literally could not play my character as "tough" without that feat. Well, I could, but, it would be mostly as comedy since, given that we had 2 more fighter types in the group, all of us had virtually the same HP, and same (or close enough) AC's. Since we were all standard array PC's with standard HP on level up, there was virtually no difference between the 4 characters.

Why is it so hard to admit that some of us actually take these feats SPECIFICALLY to create a new character concept? I literally could not play the character concept I wanted to play - tough as nails guy who can take the beats - without that feat. That's WHY I took the feat.

Mechanical differentiation does not equal concept.

 

[houser2112]

Mechanical differentiation does not equal concept.

Yes, it does. Sure, you can say your 8 Con wizard is "tough". No one is going to take that seriously because, well, negative Con modifier and smallest PC hit die makes for a decidedly not-tough character. If you want a "tough" character, and expect NPCs to not laugh at your boasts, you need to put a higher score in Con.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, it does. Sure, you can say your 8 Con wizard is "tough". No one is going to take that seriously because, well, negative Con modifier and smallest PC hit die makes for a decidedly not-tough character. If you want a "tough" character, and expect NPCs to not laugh at your boasts, you need to put a higher score in Con.

So you are saying it's impossible to have a tough fighter without the mechanical differentiation of the durable or tough feat?

Because my point all along has been that a high Con is sufficient to call a character tough. That seems to be what you are suggesting as well?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tough is a holdover from 3rd edition, but most people aren't going to take it unless they already have a high constitution anyway, to make their character super-tough.

Just stick a 13+ con prerequisite on it if you are plagued by players with 8 Con and the Tough feet. As if!

 

[houser2112]

So you are saying it's impossible to have a tough fighter without the mechanical differentiation of the durable or tough feat?

Those feats in particular? Not necessarily. I was merely responding to your "Mechanical differentiation does not equal concept." statement, using an admittedly reductio ad absurdum argument to invalidate it.

That said, I believe the other poster has a point that the other PC in his group having the same armor and hit points makes his concept of "tough" not so special. Feats would let him realize his concept easier, because they would make his "toughness" matter when it matters most: in combat.

This reminds me of when d20 Modern came out. When I read (what seemed to me) the absolutely brutal massive damage rules, and knowing the DM who would be running the game, I made a Tough hero, put my highest score in Con, and took the Great Fortitude feat. That character was indeed tough to kill with damage. Not so tough to kill with a bag of nasty fertilizer is dropped on your head and you roll a 1 on your Fort save....

 

[FrogReaver]

Tough is a holdover from 3rd edition, but most people aren't going to take it unless they already have a high constitution anyway, to make their character super-tough.

Just stick a 13+ con prerequisite on it if you are plagued by players with 8 Con and the Tough feet. As if!

The sky is blue...

???

We are just pointing out random bits of information that have nothing to do with the discussion right?

 

[FrogReaver]

Those feats in particular? Not necessarily. I was merely responding to your "Mechanical differentiation does not equal concept." statement, using an admittedly reductio ad absurdum argument to invalidate it.

I understand what you were "trying" to do. The reason I asked my questions were to "reductio ad absurdum" your "reductio ad absurdum" argument. I did so by the way.

Here's the deal in plain English. As you noted mechanical differentiation can sometimes be used for a new character concept (I agree and have been arguing the same thing the whole thread. That we already have the mechanical differentiation enough to enable almost every concept without needing a feat to do so) However, mechanical differentiation sometimes make no difference in character concept. If mechanical differentiation ALWAYS resulted in new character concepts then I would say they are equal. Since it sometimes does and sometimes does not then they are not equal.

That said, I believe the other poster has a point that the other PC in his group having the same armor and hit points makes his concept of "tough" not so special. Feats would let him realize his concept easier, because they would make his "toughness" matter when it matters most: in combat.

That just means all the PC's are tough in his campaign. I'm sorry he didn't get to be the only tough PC this time around. Feats aren't helping him be a tougher character, they are forcing everyone else to be not as tough. (It's just a matter of perspective).

This reminds me of when d20 Modern came out. When I read (what seemed to me) the absolutely brutal massive damage rules, and knowing the DM who would be running the game, I made a Tough hero, put my highest score in Con, and took the Great Fortitude feat. That character was indeed tough to kill with damage. Not so tough to kill with a bag of nasty fertilizer is dropped on your head and you roll a 1 on your Fort save....

Nice anecdote. Not sure how it applies here?

 

[houser2112]

Here's the deal in plain English. As you noted mechanical differentiation can sometimes be used for a new character concept (I agree and have been arguing the same thing the whole thread. That we already have the mechanical differentiation enough to enable almost every concept without needing a feat to do so) However, mechanical differentiation sometimes make no difference in character concept. If mechanical differentiation ALWAYS resulted in new character concepts then I would say they are equal. Since it sometimes does and sometimes does not then they are not equal.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where two characters who differ in some mechanical way are somehow not different in character concept.

That just means all the PC's are tough in his campaign. I'm sorry he didn't get to be the only tough PC this time around. Feats aren't helping him be a tougher character, they are forcing everyone else to be not as tough. (It's just a matter of perspective).

That's an.. interesting way of looking at it, I suppose. I'd say feats are doing both. Just like Constitution. Just like a d10 hit die.

Nice anecdote. Not sure how it applies here?

It doesn't, it's just a tangentially related anecdote. I'll try not to offend anyone with my anecdotes in the future.

 

[Yunru]

That just means all the PC's are tough in his campaign. I'm sorry he didn't get to be the only tough PC this time around. Feats aren't helping him be a tougher character, they are forcing everyone else to be not as tough. (It's just a matter of perspective).

No it's not. "Toughness" has an absolute value, measured by HP.
So while relative to each other it might be a matter of perspective (which falls apart once compared to, say, a monster), in actuality the feat is helping him be tougher.