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

[Hussar]

I bring it up as a clear example of the sort of thing that's caused by less clear examples that are already in the game, and what I think Mistwell was trying to talk about in his OP.

I don't think more character building options limit "character concepts" but I definitely find they limit actions the players at my table take during the game, and change the way my DM and I both rule on certain actions when e're behind the screen.

I think the question there is why. Why do mechanics seem to limit actions. I get what you're saying. If we have mechanics for doing something, the players will default to those mechanics, rather than try something else.

For me, the reason why is because relying on DM fiat to determine outcomes is very dicey. Far too often a DM will make a rule like your Performer Feat at the table with the idea that reducing the odds of success somehow equates to making things challenging. Players very quickly realize that the cost/benefit ratio of doing something outside the rules is far too often a suckers bet. So, instead of trying to come up with ways to sneak past the guards, they automatically turn to spells because they want to go with what works.

It's not so much that rules limit the actions of the players in and of themselves, it's that the confluence of rules and DM rulings results in players choosing the known over the unknown.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the question there is why. Why do mechanics seem to limit actions.

It's not so much that rules limit the actions of the players in and of themselves, it's that the confluence of rules and DM rulings results in players choosing the known over the unknown.

That's fair. Another way of looking at it is that pointing to a rule that helps define something about your character is an easy, relatively concrete way of getting buy-in or consensus about that aspect of the character. You have a high STR, you have a strong character. You know Sleep, you have a character who can put other people to sleep. In that sense, the rules establish common ground.

For me, the reason why is because relying on DM fiat to determine outcomes is very dicey. Far too often a DM will make a rule like your Performer Feat at the table with the idea that reducing the odds of success somehow equates to making things challenging. Players very quickly realize that the cost/benefit ratio of doing something outside the rules is far too often a suckers bet. So, instead of trying to come up with ways to sneak past the guards, they automatically turn to spells because they want to go with what works.

Nod. Of course, skill check outcomes literally are dicey, but if you can declare an action that the DM doesn't feel calls for a roll, not dicey. I guess we're looking at two different skills. Persuading the DM to rule in your favor is a skill. Optimizing system choices to assure success is a skill.
If you are more skillful at the former than the latter, then the more of the system that is defined - the more rules, feats, skills, DCs, etc, etc, - the less often you have opportunity to apply that skill, and the more often the system-master gets to apply his skill.

...

Having said that, I feel like I might be creating an impression that either of those are a good thing. My point was more that they're equally bad. They're both essentially shifting the resolution of an in-game action from the qualities of the character performing that action to those of the player declaring it. Making the game less about playing the characters and more about beating the other players.

 

[Hussar]

Taken to extremes, sure, I'd agree that either can be bad. But, IMO, it's preferable to have a framework common to the game, rather than simply leaving things up to the DM. Mostly because, after time, players will come to rely less and less on DM fiat and more on the mechanics because they can more accurately gauge their chances of success.

I mean, sure, you could try declaring special actions in combat every round. Disarms, trips, throwing sand in the eyes, whatever. But, even the most creative player is going to get frustrated and start relying more and more on "I attack with my longsword" in fairly short order simply because all those "special, outside the box" actions fail too often. Mostly because DM's are inherently conservative when it comes to this sort of thing. Most DM's are so worried about their players getting advantages that they didn't "earn" that "out of the box" ideas get discouraged pretty strongly.

Rolling this back around to feats, the argument is that many of the things that feats grant are either impossible (Ritual Caster, Leadership, Heavy Armor Mastery) or very difficult to do outside of a specific framework. Most DM's simply won't allow players to do the things that feats let them do.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about a feat called, "Master of Improvisation."

When ever your DM makes a ruling, you gain Inspiration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Y. I am saying as you head more towards the "rules" side you move away from the "freedom" side.

Yeah, just doesn't seem that simple. Good rules can expand player options and freedom relative to fewer, but worse rules. The fewer rules side of the continuum depends on ever higher-quality participants to even be playable, at all.

That doesn't mean "all freedom is best" but it does mean you can slowly but surely arrive at points in the game where you've made a meaningful jump too far in one direction. And I am wondering if feats are one such jumps.

It depends on how well feats are done.

I suppose, if we're to be brutally honest, they don't have a good track record. In 3.5, they were often broken or part of very broken combos, in 4e, mostly chaff, in Essentials, again, some of 'em pretty broken. 5e's biggest improvement to them was making them entirely optional...

 

[Hussar]

Meh, feats in 3e weren't really much on the broken side. The item creation stuff I suppose, but, other than that, not a huge issue.

Then again, 3.5 had what, 1700 feats by the end? I'm pretty sure not all of them were golden.

5e seems to have hit a pretty sweet spot AFAIC. Existing feats can be used to enhance concepts without dramatically affecting game play, or, you can simply do without and the game works fine as well.

 

[RobertBrus]

It seems a nice balance to allow both and let the players decide which way they want to go. ASI or feat, your choice. Though I think it important for the GM to take a close look at each feat and decide which ones to allow or not.

Based upon the recent replies, the issue is centered on the GM, which I get. Maybe that would make for another thread where the discussion is on effective versus poor Gm'ing. If feats are a way to get around a lousy GM, or a GM that sometimes rules in a lousy manner, then the issue is probably GM related and not feats related. It would be a question of mechanics over good play. Or using mechanics to compensate for poor play. If this is the case, then it opens the door for ever more mechanics to try to offset ever more lousy game play, including players who can't or won't exercise their imagination and role-playing within the construct of game mechanics. Or players protecting themselves from either perceived or real TPK type GM's.

Part of the fun is the unknown, at least for myself. However, there needs to be some consistency to the rulings made by the GM. Castles & Crusades (C&C) has a nice idea where narrative should drive results far more than dice rolls, whenever appropriate. So if a player describes what their character is doing, and the action(s) fit the character, and the attempt is clever/creative/ the GM should give the player a much deserved success, feat or not. Of course within reason.

The areas where it becomes difficult to decide, then die rolls, whether feats based or otherwise, can be useful for all.

Having said that, I feel like I might be creating an impression that either of those are a good thing. My point was more that they're equally bad. They're both essentially shifting the resolution of an in-game action from the qualities of the character performing that action to those of the player declaring it. Making the game less about playing the characters and more about beating the other players.

Tony Vargas.

I agree. It has the potential to move the game further from "telling a story" to "talking about the game" In other words, don't ask the GM a direct question and then roll a die, describe what your character is doing in order to achieve the desired results. If it becomes simply a game of mechanics and die rolling, something quite lovely about RPG's has been lost. I would rather go back to Farkle or Yatze. I know we are not, by and large, trained thespians, but I would like to see more not less role-playing and storytelling. And if ever more game mechanics hinder that, I say less is more.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I've enjoyed feats since 3e, and used them in every version since then.

However, I know some people who don't like feats. Some of the most experienced players and DMs I know choose to not have feats in their games. They feel it's much more "sophomore" level of play where people are comfortable enough to try some different things (no longer freshmen) but not comfortable enough to do those things without written rules to cover them (senior). Their players can try almost anything listed in the feats by making some sort of check under appropriate circumstances without the need for rules text to overly mechanize it and, by implication, disallow others from trying those things without that feat.

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.

I will provide some examples. This is just six examples, but I feel they're fairly representative of the issue in general, and I could argue for many feats outside this subset in a similar manner. In fact, a lot of the feats apply a mechanical benefit which can be assumed by the circumstance bonus rules already in the game.

Actor Feat: "You can mimic the speech of another person or the sounds made by other creatures. You must have heard the person speaking, or heard the creature make the sound, for at least 1 minute. A successful Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked."

Without this feat in the game, why wouldn't you be able to try a Charisma (Deception) check to try and mimic the speech of another person or sound made by other creatures, contested by a Wisdom (Insight) check? And if Player X has this feat in your game, wouldn't it be natural for a DM to tell Player Y they cannot try that because they don't have the feat and it would step on the toes of Player X who spent a precious resource to gain that "ability"?

Inspiring Leader: "You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet o f you who can see or hear you and who can understand you. Each creature can gain temporary hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier. A creature can’t gain temporary hit points from this feat again until it has finished a short or long rest."

Without this feat in the game, if a Player makes a very inspiring speech which the DM judges would give a psychological boost to their allies, the DM might choose to give those allies some temporary hit points from the speech related to the PC's charisma (and probably would limit it to those who could hear it rather than an arbitrary 30' distance). They might even allow it a second time without as rest, under appropriate circumstances (like a forced march while chasing foes who have kidnapped their companion). But with this feat in the game if Player X has it, it would be hard for a DM to justify allowing Player Y to try it, or to even alter the rules to have it work without a short rest or outside 30' because the rule is right there in black and white on a PC's character sheet that way.

Keen Mind: "You always know which way is north. You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset. You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month."

Without this feat in the game, any of these things could be determined with an appropriate ability/skill check, or perhaps even automatically depending on the circumstances. And maybe it still could even with this feat in the game. However, if Player X happens to have this feat? The DM will probably naturally feel more reluctant to hand out that sort of information without the feat to the other PCs who lack it.

Linguist: "You can ably create written ciphers. Others can’t decipher a code you create unless you teach them, they succeed on an Intelligence check (DC equal to your Intelligence score + your proficiency bonus), or they use magic to decipher it."

Without this feat in the game, I see no reason why any PC couldn't try and create a written cipher which could be broken by an Intelligence check similar to the one described. With it, I can see a DM having trouble justifying allowing such a thing without the feat.

Mounted Combat: "You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead."

Without this feat in the game, I cam definitely see circumstances where a player will argue they can intervene in a strike against their mount like that. With it...DMs will feel the pressure to not allow that if some other player has the feat and they don't.

Skulker: "When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position."

Without this feat in the game, I can see a Player reasonably trying to not reveal their position after a missed arrow attack, depending on the circumstances. With the feat, DMs won't want to allow that if another PC has the feat and you don't.

Conclusion: I am slowly starting to agree with this set of more experienced DMs and players I know who don't have feats in their game. Sometimes, the more rules you have for the high level details of every potential circumstance of the game (which is most exemplified by feats) the less freedom you have to try different things if the circumstances call for it because a rule (in a feat) already covers that idea and you don't have that option (feat) on your character sheet (though someone else might).

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

The feats (we’ve rewritten them for our campaign) largely avoid this by granting bonuses or advantage instead of new abilities. Where we do provide additional abilities, it is the sort of thing that we feel would be known to fewer people who have training in that specific thing.

For example, we have an Acrobat feat that allows you to tightrope walk and pole vault.

I think there’s a big difference between riding a mount and being trained to use a mount in combat, for example, so I don’t have an issue with a feat for mounted combat.

I wouldn’t call it a sophomore approach at all, but I prefer fewer feats, and class abilities too. I consider it a more gamist approach that really appeals to folks that like to look for combinations and such that affect the mechanical game.

I wrote an extensive list of combat maneuvers, many useable by anybody, some with specific feats or fighters. In addition to added complexity, it became clear that many people would select the same options, and most combats would be the same maneuvers all the time.

So yes, I definitely think it inhibits options and creativity. It also leads to a more mechanical focus on the game with character build guides, folks avoiding “wasting” a choice on a “trap” item even when it makes the most sense for the character, etc.

The other aspect that I like better with a less is more approach is simplicity. Character creation is faster and easier. Players can differentiate their characters by their own decisions and role playing along with their different backstories.

Having said that, many people prefer more defined roles and niches within the group, and they usually mean a mechanical niche. Something that differentiates their character within the rules themselves.

Overall, I think 5e has done a decent job of designing a system that works well for both types of players, but as you point out, there are a number of feats (along with race and class abilities) that imply that it means others cannot do the same thing without those abilities, but they should be able to.