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

[Jacob Lewis]

The only thing that stifles creativity and character options are a lack of imagination and other players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is an age-old debate.

If you go back, you will see that there was resistance to many of the original Thief's abilities. If a Thief can "Hide in Shadows," or "Move Silently," doesn't that mean that other characters can't.

And so on. THe debate pops up every time an ability is defined and given (either to a class, or as a feat, etc.).

There's not really an answer to this, it's what you are comfortable with. Personally, I hate "roleplaying abilities" (deception, intimidation checks, etc.) because ... I don't like dice to replace social interaction. But that's me. The flip side is that without them (like in 1e) charisma isn't a very useful ability. *shrug*

The misunderstanding regarding thief abilities goes all the way back to the Greyhawk supplement. It was not communicated in that supplement that the thief ability table was supposed to function as a special saving throw table in the event that the normal resolution chances for such activities (which was usually an informal process of assigning probability based on situational circumstances) failed. Instead the thief abilities were interpreted as being exclusive to thieves and thus suddenly other characters couldn't even attempt to be stealthy and low level thieves sucked at their forte. This assumption persisted through the editions unfortunately.

Charisma was a very important ability in the early editions of the game for several reasons. Charisma had an impact on reaction rolls. Those with high charisma could get more favorable reaction roll outcomes which had a huge impact on survival. Charisma also heavily influenced dealings with henchmen and hirelings especially where loyalty was concerned. As the editions of the game wore on, the impact of charisma on monster reactions faded away and the use of henchmen started to decline eventually becoming all but written out of the game. Without the game elements that make charisma important, of course it was destined to become an extraneous stat. If core elements of play get discarded then naturally, other elements that existed mainly to support those core elements will seem extraneous.

 

[Ganders]

I suspect that the authors of the feats believed, when they were writing those feats, that they were dishing out abilities that normal characters usually wouldn't have. They believed that the things specified in the feats were things that the DM would normally not allow. because only real experts in that field could do such a thing. So they believed that they were not crimping the abilities of everyone else, because these things were already in the 'NO' category, so others' options were unaffected.

If those things, in your game, are in the 'YES' category, then you're playing a more high-powered, less gritty-reality version of the game. Which we might agree is a *better* way to play -- one might even say senior-level fun. It really does sound more fun and creative.

But in such a game, the feats that characters have available to them need to be different than the feats in the book. Because feats need to give powers and abilities above and beyond what you would normally have. That seems to be their purpose after all -- to make the person who took that feat noticably better at that specialty than anyone who didn't take that feat.

If feats in your game are intruding too much on options that are already in the 'YES' space, then you're using feats wrong. You need to beef up the feats so they offer abilities that are usually in the 'NO' space so the DM doesn't feel any need to limit others' options.

 

[Satyrn]

The misunderstanding regarding thief abilities goes all the way back to the Greyhawk supplement. It was not communicated in that supplement that the thief ability table was supposed to function as a special saving throw table in the event that the normal resolution chances for such activities (which was usually an informal process of assigning probability based on situational circumstances) failed.

That is fascinating.

Where did you learn this?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

O_O ...that's ...that's a lot of posts!

Just to clarify my stance; having "more options" doesn't automatically mean it's "less creative". But those options DO have to be handled right. For example, there are a LOT of options in a lot of DIY games like GURPS or HERO System. But in those systems, someone could make a "damage dealing fighter" in several different ways. You could have two big damage dealing fighters in the same party and each could be wildly different in how they deal that damage; one could go more accuracy, another could just spend points on beefing up his physical strength stat, or one could hedge their bets and spend some on several complimentary options...the end result is that all of those fighters using a 2-h sword would be doing roughly the same damage over the course of a combat. But each does it in their own way.

With 5e..this isn't really that easy. If you want to do a lot of damage with a two handed sword, you pretty much have to take GWM weather you like it or not simply because there isn't much else you can do to increase your damage capability with a two-handed sword. The way that Feats are in 5e, my group and I found that it limited our "reasonable choices" for making a big damage dealing fighter with a 2-h sword (as an example). Take GWM or you will never be able to deal as much damage as someone with the same stats that does have GWM. The -5 is big at low levels...once you are approaching 10th (we noticed it at 6th/7th level), that -5 becomes a LOT less of a hurdle.

The OP's claim of "if you don't have the feat...you can't do it" is something we found with 3.x/PF mostly. With 5e, a little less so. But that's probably because of how I interpret skill checks and such. (short version: if you don't have a skill taken, your BEST success will be slightly better than the average check by someone who does have that skill... ie, you will never be able to 'know more' than someone who has the skill). So someone with the "Actor" feat would be the equivalent of someone who was 'skilled' in it...and if they had both the feat and the 'skill', they would be that much better than someone who just has the skill. (oh, and for those Feats that just use an ability check thing?...you have the 'skill' if you have the Save proficiency bonus on that ability).

Bottom line: Games built around "options" tend to do it a LOT better. With 5e and Feats, they should have made them more generic so a Feat could cover many different aspects of play (combat, skill use, etc). The way 5e feats are, for us at any rate, all they served to do was place great pressure on a player to take certain feats ALL THE TIME when making some type of character. When the player bucked the system, they were effectively punished (mechanically) for not "taking the optimal Feat" for their build.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Warmaster Horus]

DMs can always nerf. I've nerfed feats before. But, the key distinction is that I tell my players about it beforehand, so they know what they're getting if they choose that feat. Nerfing a feat without advance warning, or without explaining to the player why the feat as is poses a problem and needs to be altered, and without getting feedback from the player on potential changes is just bad form.

So it sounds like you're not allowing the feat, not Nerfing it. Telling someone you can have something, but not really, means you're not allowing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That is fascinating.

Where did you learn this?

Information gathered from the OD&D boards and other forums populated by old timers who actually played the original game before the Greyhawk supplement introduced the thief class, which was a short period before 1975. I have played the original game but didn't start playing until 1980. The perspective of those who played right at, or even before the game was released is interesting to listen to and the rules tidbits when put all together make a lot of sense even if the presentation and explanation of those rules could have been presented much better. I have a greater understanding and appreciation for the game after listening to these perspectives.

Actually if you stop to think about it, there HAD to be a measure of skulking and stealth as part of the game prior to the thief class. People close to the creators were playing in some form as early as 1971 or so, before the games release. In a game that took place primarily in dark dungeons full of deadly monsters there had to be players who attempted to sneak past danger and search for traps, scout ambushes and so forth even though there wasn't a character class dedicated to doing that stuff.

 

[Satyrn]

Thank you.

 

[MechaPilot]

So it sounds like you're not allowing the feat, not Nerfing it. Telling someone you can have something, but not really, means you're not allowing it.

Depends on the feat. There are some feats I have just straight-up disallowed (none so far from 5e, but it definitely happened in prior editions), just like I disallow all long-range teleportation spells. A nerf, by comparison, alters how powerful something is, or how it works. It definitely involves modifying the option, but it's not the same as completely disallowing the option.

 

[guachi]

I think feats constrain creativity if the feats are too weak. In this case, they overly limit what a person without the feat might be able to accomplish.

On the other hand, feats can limit creativity if they are too strong. In this case, players overly gravitate towards these feats making PCs more similar than one would hope given the existence of feats.

The only real issue I've had is with the latter as a feat of some kind is often felt necessary for many martial characters. Though at least in the case of the fighter it's not as problematic given they get an extra feat at level 6.