D&D 5E Question about feats in 5e.

[Blue]

If that were actually true, then why are those people not playing 3.x or Pathfinder? Those games have a much deeper and richer character optimization minigame than 5e could ever hope to provide.

I'll take a shot at this, just for me.

First, someone can like the 5e rules and how they have evolved, improved, and streamlined since 3.x. Or maybe you don't like magic items being a defacto part of character advancement that's baked into the math.

Second, because you want more complexity then ruleset A doesn't mean you want ALL THE COMPLEXITY. It does not need to be a linear - more complexity = more enjoyment, it is more likely "I like a complexity of around N out of 10".

Third, the character optimization in 3.5 got so deep that it's inherently broken because of interactions when you take things from lots of different (official) sources. The ur-example is Pun Pun, but I've played characters that by build could have laid flaming waste to any imagination of balance between characters - except that I didn't. I de-tuned characters and played them to match the power level of the rest of the party. Or if I was above it, it was because I played "#1 support character" - the 4e Defender that allowed all the glass cannons to shine, the 3.5ed party buffer from hell, etc.

Fourth, 3.5 complexity already required lots of pre-planning not to fall behind. So you had to build your character out ahead of time because of all the requisites for feats/feat chains, PrCs, etc. Missing a BAB requirement by a level means delaying a feat for three levels that means delaying a PrC which leans yu don't have the right skill cap to enter another PrC ...

Fifth, and related to #4, finding out that 90% of the builds were seriously sub-optimal compared to the state-of-the-curve of what builds could do, really limited your options.

Oh, and my personal - after running 12 years of 3.x building monsters and NPCs using the same building blocks (and that complexity) as PCs is a crock. The amount of time it eats up is ridiculous. Much rather a "here's around what makes sense for this level, let me tweak to customize".

 

[Alexemplar]

I do prefer feats that enhance skills/out of combat abilities, utility, or help define characters (stuff like Actor, Tavern Brawler, and Healer) as opposed to ones that reinforce or give flat power increases to existing class focuses (stuff like Crossbow Expert, Elemental Adept, Shield Master). The latter I think would have worked better as features within classes and in the case of most of the weapon related ones, replacing the rather simple and not-too defining Fighting Styles.

Personally, I don't use feats in my games.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'll take a shot at this, just for me.

First, someone can like the 5e rules and how they have evolved, improved, and streamlined since 3.x. Or maybe you don't like magic items being a defacto part of character advancement that's baked into the math.

Second, because you want more complexity then ruleset A doesn't mean you want ALL THE COMPLEXITY. It does not need to be a linear - more complexity = more enjoyment, it is more likely "I like a complexity of around N out of 10".

Third, the character optimization in 3.5 got so deep that it's inherently broken because of interactions when you take things from lots of different (official) sources. The ur-example is Pun Pun, but I've played characters that by build could have laid flaming waste to any imagination of balance between characters - except that I didn't. I de-tuned characters and played them to match the power level of the rest of the party. Or if I was above it, it was because I played "#1 support character" - the 4e Defender that allowed all the glass cannons to shine, the 3.5ed party buffer from hell, etc.

Fourth, 3.5 complexity already required lots of pre-planning not to fall behind. So you had to build your character out ahead of time because of all the requisites for feats/feat chains, PrCs, etc. Missing a BAB requirement by a level means delaying a feat for three levels that means delaying a PrC which leans yu don't have the right skill cap to enter another PrC ...

Fifth, and related to #4, finding out that 90% of the builds were seriously sub-optimal compared to the state-of-the-curve of what builds could do, really limited your options.

Oh, and my personal - after running 12 years of 3.x building monsters and NPCs using the same building blocks (and that complexity) as PCs is a crock. The amount of time it eats up is ridiculous. Much rather a "here's around what makes sense for this level, let me tweak to customize".

Perhaps, but if your goal is to dominate the other players (as was stated in the post I was responding to) then IMO 5e is probably not the game for you. The difference between an optimized character and a non-optimized character is not so great. From what I've seen in discussions here and elsewhere, most of the optimization lies in creating optimized parties. At that point you're not optimizing to dominate the other players (except perhaps the DM, and that simply leads to an object lesson regarding mutually assured destruction).

I recognize that 3.x is quite complex, but if your goal is to dominate the other players, that complexity works in your favor.

 

[Ancalagon]

We don't use feats in our game

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Gadget]

While I feel the OP is a little extreme in stating his/her opinion, I can relate. Feats have been the bugaboo (or at least a big bugaboo, if not the bugaboo) of the past several editions. Every edition experiments with the design of the mechanic a little and having a slightly different take on it, but in the end some of the same problems manifest. 3e feats (along with prestige classes) were a dumping ground of every wild and out there idea possible, with little regard to stacking or interactions with the rest of the system, with plethora of options and feat chains that took on the status of mini-prestige classes. 4e tried to reign in the madness with more restrictive feats the granted more circumstantial bonii and benefits with less feat chains, but ended using it as stealth-fix delivery system which still end up as a min/max meta-game with 'feat taxes.' 5e feats feel a little like an afterthought with an optional tag to excuse some of the poor design.

Having said that, the allure of the feat design space as a way to 'customize' your PC independent (or semi-independent of) class, race, and background is strong. Moar stuff you can do, moar cool things! Feat design has improved a bit over the editions, someday it will reach its apex.

 

[Ratskinner]

IME, feats in 5e are pretty good and not the nightmare that they were in the previous editions. Heck, a 2/5ths of my group hasn't taken one yet, and even chose default humans rather than alt humans. Even the much-reviled GWM and SS feats haven't seemed to unbalance things nearly as much as one might think when reading all these white-room analysis threads....its almost like playtesting is a better test of what happens in a game than theorizing.

Now, that being said. I wouldn't have a problem with a DM banning feats, or playing in such a game. They are one option. If you're into a simpler version of the game, so be it. Generally, the folks I'm with have a greater influence on the fun I'm having than such a relatively small tweak in game system.

YMMV

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would argue that if the game is fun for everyone, balance is irrelevant.

Fun's entirely subjective, balance more objective. If your goal is fun, and you're already having maximum fun, and you're not concerned with ever duplicating that, everything else is irrelevant, though, sure...
...and analyzing the source of your fun can even spoil it. ;P

Well yes, mathematically, less options typically means more balance. Assuming the remaining choices are balanced themselves.

I think that's a simplistic way of looking at it. Removing one overpowered option that renders a dozen others non-viable improves balance, sure. But, so does adding more balanced options. And, removing already-balanced options, obviously, reduces balance.

It's not the number of options, it's the number of viable options. A game with only one viable option is imbalanced, whether it's the only option or the best one among thousands of others that are worthless by comparison.


Of course, players could choose to ignore the options in a balanced system, and create identical characters, anyway, so there's no guarantees that a balanced system will deliver it's intended benefits....

If you reduce the outcome of any contest to a coin flip, it is even more balanced.

It's perfectly fair, but not even a little bit balanced, because there's nothing to balance....

Prioritizing balance over fun because "Any game can be fun" does not mean that making choices purely on balance can not reduce the amount of fun.

Prioritizing balance can also open a game up to being /more/ fun. Not so much because balance forces unavoidable fun on everyone, but in that it offers some protection from fun-sinks that can bring a game down...

Frankly, I like balance a lot. Because it gives people equal chances to take the spotlight and be awesome - in other words, chances to have fun. This is a game I play as a hobby, for enjoyment. Consistent and recurring fun can be helped by balance, but does not spring forth from balance.

That's fair.

Perhaps, but if your goal is to dominate the other players (as was stated in the post I was responding to) then IMO 5e is probably not the game for you.

Oh, it absolutely is (and, rightly so, for that matter, since 5e /is/ meant to be for everyone who ever loved any past edition of D&D, and that includes 3.5, which was ideal for such shenanigans), just not for exactly the same reasons. In part, 5e was a reaction to the edition war which was primarily a firestorm around 4e being /too/ balanced, so 5e pendulum-swung away from that. Not straight back into 3.5 RAW-mastery, but all the way back to the classic game's reliance on and Empowerment of the DM.
So, instead of finding the most stupid broken combo in the game and expecting the DM to let you play it, in 5e you must find the choices that the DM, rather than the system, will most heavily favor in play. OK, there are some easy/obvious system-favored choices, as well, but they pale compare to what you can get away with 'gaming the DM.' Also, 5e is the current edition, so the point of entry for new players - who are comparatively defenseless against the experienced would-be game-dominator, which brings us to...

If that were actually true, then why are those people not playing 3.x or Pathfinder? T

...of course, they could also be playing 3.x/PF, when they want the challenge of vying for dominance with other experienced system masters.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that's a simplistic way of looking at it. Removing one overpowered option that renders a dozen others non-viable improves balance, sure. But, so does adding more balanced options. And, removing already-balanced options, obviously, reduces balance.

Sure, but at it's base, solving for 2+X=Y is a lot simpler than (2^Y)*(H/14)-((Z+Q)/F)=X
Removing any one of those variables makes the equation substantially simpler.
In the first equation even if X is any number between zero and infinity the answer will always be X+2. The result is predictable.
In the second equation, the answer instead of the variable could be anything between zero and infinity. The result is unpredictable.

It's not the number of options, it's the number of viable options. A game with only one viable option is imbalanced, whether it's the only option or the best one among thousands of others that are worthless by comparison.

But the problem is that "viable" is a subjective question. Are some options viable for certain builds? Worthless for others? OP in some? Sure. That could be the very same variable in each of those questions. So by removing a variable, we reduce complexity and that tends towards balance because it makes the potential outcomes more predictable.

Of course, players could choose to ignore the options in a balanced system, and create identical characters, anyway, so there's no guarantees that a balanced system will deliver it's intended benefits....

But that's not to say identical characters aren't balanced. But with fewer variables, they're more likely to be balanced than not, I mean, assuming that once you scrape off all the toppings what you have actually is a pizza and not ya know, an old god.