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

[neogod22]

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?

So this is how I feel about these feats.
ACTOR Could a player try and mimic a dialect from a people they've never seen before? Sure after a certain amount of time, maybe weeks or months, but not 1 min. I think they can attempt it, but with an impossible DC that slowly goes down over time. It's like in real life, a trained actor can act, and make you believe that the role they are playing is a real person. You trying it, will probably be received as you're trying to make fun of those people. Now the mastermind already gets a similar ability, so the feat don't have to be used.

Inspiring Leader this won't work without the feat. The best I would give as a DM is inspirational to the speech giver. There are other ways to get temps, so the don't have to be used.

Keen Mind the purpose of this feat is to be used when the characters are not outside and can look for the sun. When you've spent long periods of time in a dungeon, in the Underdark, or even if a volcano erupted and the sky was covered in ash, it's easy to lose all sense of time. Now I think the druidcraft cantrip can do this too, so if you have a druid in the group, you're set.

I think feats allow for customization and separation between characters. I think the problem is, people seem to think, "if I don't max out my stats, what good am I?" I don't always use feats. I use them as they pertain to my character.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As many folks probably know, I don't like nor use feats (my players feel the same way). That said, the reason why we don't use feats in 5e is that we found that they ended up 'limiting' character concepts far more often then they helped create them. The whole "if you don't have this feat, you can't do it" thing was one of the main reasons why we hated them in 3.x and PF. With 5e this didn't feel quite as bad, but it was still there.

How did we feel it 'limited' characters? Let me 'splain...no, would take to long. Let me sum up: How many "big strong damage-dealing warriors" (fighters, barbarians, etc) take either GWM or PAM? How many "nimble rangers" take SS or CBM? How many "AC front-wall defending warriors" take some sort of Armor Mastery or Shield Master?

It's kind of a trick question, because the answer is almost always "all of them". That is not "creative". It is not "diverse". It's not "unique and interesting character" type building...it's "game mechanics to guarantee I'm always seen as a [insert common class/race build]". Without feats you can have two fighters in a group that both use a two-handed sword. Maybe one has a 17 strength and the other has a 14 strength. They are both seen as "good at dealing damage"...because a +1 th/dmg isn't honestly going to be noticed most of the time. Now, at 4th level, one of them takes GWM. BAM! Now that guy can take a -5 penalty, but suddenly LEAP up in damage by 10 points. Suddenly it now becomes "Bill is good at damage, but Fred is REALLY good...much better than Bill". ..POOF!.. The player playing Bill has just had his character reduced to second-fiddle, the 'back up damage dealer', they second-choice...Bill is the "weak fighter" all of a sudden.

That's why we don't use feats.

They don't encourage diversity in character builds. They encourage/require characters to all take the same general feats over and over, based on class...not based on any sort of character history, background, or personality. If you want to be a "damage dealing" fighter, you WILL have to take one of the feats that lets you do a LOT of damage...because every other "damage dealing fighters" will have it. PC or NPC, if you don't take GWM or PAM, you will be seen as "damage-dealing-fighter-LITE".

That same sort of game mechanical 'outcome' gets even worse if you allow multiclassing and choices from books other than the core PHB. That's why if someone says "I have a bladelock"...you know EXACTLY what his likely race is, his classes, his choice of weapon, his choice of feats, his choice of spells, etc. Because if he doesn't have most/all of those "options"...then he will be seen as "not a REAL bladelock".

Feats: Good idea...but once again, poorly implemented.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sunseeker]

Hiya!

As many folks probably know, I don't like nor use feats (my players feel the same way). That said, the reason why we don't use feats in 5e is that we found that they ended up 'limiting' character concepts far more often then they helped create them. The whole "if you don't have this feat, you can't do it" thing was one of the main reasons why we hated them in 3.x and PF. With 5e this didn't feel quite as bad, but it was still there.

How did we feel it 'limited' characters? Let me 'splain...no, would take to long. Let me sum up: How many "big strong damage-dealing warriors" (fighters, barbarians, etc) take either GWM or PAM? How many "nimble rangers" take SS or CBM? How many "AC front-wall defending warriors" take some sort of Armor Mastery or Shield Master?

It's kind of a trick question, because the answer is almost always "all of them". That is not "creative". It is not "diverse". It's not "unique and interesting character" type building...it's "game mechanics to guarantee I'm always seen as a [insert common class/race build]". Without feats you can have two fighters in a group that both use a two-handed sword. Maybe one has a 17 strength and the other has a 14 strength. They are both seen as "good at dealing damage"...because a +1 th/dmg isn't honestly going to be noticed most of the time. Now, at 4th level, one of them takes GWM. BAM! Now that guy can take a -5 penalty, but suddenly LEAP up in damage by 10 points. Suddenly it now becomes "Bill is good at damage, but Fred is REALLY good...much better than Bill". ..POOF!.. The player playing Bill has just had his character reduced to second-fiddle, the 'back up damage dealer', they second-choice...Bill is the "weak fighter" all of a sudden.

That's why we don't use feats.

They don't encourage diversity in character builds. They encourage/require characters to all take the same general feats over and over, based on class...not based on any sort of character history, background, or personality. If you want to be a "damage dealing" fighter, you WILL have to take one of the feats that lets you do a LOT of damage...because every other "damage dealing fighters" will have it. PC or NPC, if you don't take GWM or PAM, you will be seen as "damage-dealing-fighter-LITE".

That same sort of game mechanical 'outcome' gets even worse if you allow multiclassing and choices from books other than the core PHB. That's why if someone says "I have a bladelock"...you know EXACTLY what his likely race is, his classes, his choice of weapon, his choice of feats, his choice of spells, etc. Because if he doesn't have most/all of those "options"...then he will be seen as "not a REAL bladelock".

Feats: Good idea...but once again, poorly implemented.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Riddle me this:

If everyone who builds a great-weapon-style fighter takes the same feats, in the same way that sharpshooers or shield-guys do, then creativity is in your words "limited".

But by removing feats, don't all the people who make fighters, archers, shield-guys make the same choices?

And by extension, it seems that you also disallow MC and non-PHB material.

So how, exactly have you increased creativity? There is, as far as I can tell, next to zero choice beyond initial character creation. You pick your race, your class, your bakground and then...you're done. Progression seems essentially automatic on a linear path through one class and one subclass.

And please don't tell me "Well the creativity is all in the role-play!" since this is a discussion about mechanical elements and mechanical limitations.

 

[Satyrn]

And please don't tell me "Well the creativity is all in the role-play!" since this is a discussion about mechanical elements and mechanical limitations.

What you're asking him not to say is at the heart of my thoughts on this topic.

So I guess I'll just bow out.

 

[Syntallah]

What you're asking him not to say is at the heart of my thoughts on this topic.

So I guess I'll just bow out.

While I certainly understand the "role-playing as creativity" element, why does using feats exclude/nullify this?

If ( and this question is for pming as well), you don't use feats, multiclassing, and non-PHB stuff, instead diversifying your characters through role-play aspects, why can you role-play differently with feats?

 

[transtemporal]

Mostly it's the illusion of choice rather than actual choice. Numerically, there are always superior choices. I think if feats weren't such a precious resource though, you'd see people making more interesting choices.

 

[Satyrn]

While I certainly understand the "role-playing as creativity" element, why does using feats exclude/nullify this?

If ( and this question is for pming as well), you don't use feats, multiclassing, and non-PHB stuff, instead diversifying your characters through role-play aspects, why can you role-play differently with feats?

It's not that using feats nullifies it (that would be too strong an impact), but I found when I have game mechanics that say something like "you can use a skill to do X" I will tend to search for ways in the game to do X, and accidently limit myself from doing Y and Z. And when I'm DMing, I a was more apt to let X happen while looking askance at Y and Z.

It was like having mechanics sometimes got in the way of my decision making. As a player, I have more fun when that doesn't happen. As a DM, I feel more successful when my players just tell me what their character does, and I decide whether an ability check is needed or not.



I do use feats and multiclassing, though. There's nowhere near the volume of mechanical bits in 5e that there was 3e or Pathfinder; it's at a volume that I find enjoyable.

And the sort of feats that I truly dislike aren't really present in 5e - The Skill feats Unearthed Arcana would never see play when I'm DMing - with the sort of features that give new seemingly "exclusive" use of an existing mechanic.

 

[Sunseeker]

What you're asking him not to say is at the heart of my thoughts on this topic.

So I guess I'll just bow out.

Let me put it this way:
As a long-time optimizer, the specific build of my PC has very little to do with who they are as a character. Now, maybe I'm the odd man out but it seems to me that all something like GWM or Shield Master says about your character is that they're good with these things. Doesn't say how you got good with them. Doesn't say why you're good with them. Just says you are. The how, the why, those are the elements you fill in through role-play.

Sure, certain classes imply certain things about those hows and whys but those implications are often very small. Heck, Backgrounds say more about who your character is than their build. Hermit, for example, says a whole lot of things! Far Traveler on the other hand says very little.

But GWM? That says nothing about your character other than you are skilled with big weapons.

Mmm kinda lost my train of thought there...

So when people like [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] or [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] say that feats can restrict mechanical options, I can at least see their argument, especially when it plays to a much more "Try anything!" style of D&D (which I have been part of and didn't particularly care for). But when the argument becomes "These mechanical options limit my role-play options!" I'm just left scratching my head. I get it if someone feels pressured to take GWM when they really want to use *something else* because they're being pressured to increase their DPR...but that's not an issue with rules or options, that's an issue with table behaviour. It's one reason you'll rarely see healers, tanks or support-style characters in my games because I'm very big on "Play what you want to play."

And I really don't see how, when someone like [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] comes along and says that "fewer options increase creativity". Regardless of if we're talking about feats, races, classes or whatever. I mean...I guess people could feel limited by the built-in fluff of a race? But does that mean a fluff-less race (humans I guess?) produces more creativity? I think that depends a lot on the person in question. But some of these statements seem so matter-of-fact "X does Y." Not "I enjoy X over Y." or "IME X works better for me than Y." It's "fewer options increase creativity." Period.

And I find that view puzzling.

 

[77IM]

Mistwell, I agree with your premise but I would phrase it very differently. To me, the big problem with feats are that they are REDUNDANT with other character abilities.

Athlete is a perfect example. Who is a better "athlete:" the person trained in Athletics, the person with the Athlete feat, the 7th-level Champion fighter with the Remarkable Athlete class feature, the rogue with Expertise in Athletics, or the person with abnormally high Strength?

Now some people would say "oh those are just different ways of being a good athlete," but I would contend that the distinctions are cut too fine to be worth tracking. Even worse, a person could have more than one of those abilities, and be a "better" athlete. To me, if I want my character to be a good athlete, I should be able to specify that on my character sheet ONCE, and not have to worry about it after that.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of the feats mentioned in the OP would be better if baked in as class or race abilities. Actor should be a Bard ability gained at some level or other. Keen Mind (and why don't they just call it 'Direction Sense' fer gawd's sake?) should be a Ranger and Druid ability (outdoors only) and a Dwarf and Gnome ability (underground only). Inspiring Leader shouldn't exist at all and nor IMO should anything else that can give hit points at a distance. Why bother with Linguist? Make ciphering (which really doesn't come up all that often anyway) a simple Int check. Skulker could easily become a baked-in feature of Rogue and-or Assassin at a certain level. And so on.

Combat feats are trickier. I still don't like 'em - I'm just fine with swinging my axe repeatedly until the foe drops or I do - but something like Mounted Combat could become a baked-in feature of a Knight or Cavalier class were one to exist. Two-weapon Fighting could get baked in to a Pirate or Swashbuckler class. And so on, again.

And were someone not possessed of the requisite feat intent on trying it anyway, I'd say sure why not. The odds of success would be dependent both on the situation and on what was being tried, of course - for example if a normal Fighter tried using two weapons in combat without the ability might be at a minus to hit on the primary weapon and at disadvantage on the secondary.

The question will come up: but what if we feel we need ability x in the party but nobody's playing the right class for it? Answer: go and recruit or hire an NPC adventurer or hench who has the ability you need, and carry on.

Beyond that, I don't see the need to mechanically reproduce every element that makes Fighter A (back-line archer) different from Fighter B (front-line sword and board). They can happily run on the same underlying mechanical chassis yet be roleplayed into two completely different characters.

Lan-"one more who thinks the roll-under mechanic needs to be brought back"-efan