Warmaster Horus
Explorer
In fact I see such Feats as ENABLING. It means you have a qualified ability that the DM can't nerf within the rules if they allow Feats in their game.
D&D 5E Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?
MechaPilot
Explorer
Some individual feats are badly designed. That happens. For example, the Actor feat basically tells you you can try to do something you should already be able to try to do (i.e. try to mimic a sound or voice), and it tells you to resolve it using an unmodified version of the way most things are resolved (an opposed attribute check, with no imposed modifier or advantage).
But, feats that aren't designed badly simply make you better at doing a thing.
This reminds me a lot of a discussion about 4e's powers that I once had. I was once asked why can't someone attempt to do the same thing as a power. To which my response is they can try to do it, but the person who has the power will always be better at doing it (all other things being equal). Maybe the person with the power gets a bonus to performing the ability that the other doesn't. Maybe the other can't do it as efficiently and has to expend more of their action resources in a round. None of this prevents others from doing these things, it just means you should design the resolution of attempts to do these thing without having the power in a manner that makes them less effective, less efficient, or less likely to succeed than the manner given for people with the power.
Also, as to whether feats stifle creativity, feats themselves open up a whole new avenue for expressing creativity in the creation of feats.
But, feats that aren't designed badly simply make you better at doing a thing.
This reminds me a lot of a discussion about 4e's powers that I once had. I was once asked why can't someone attempt to do the same thing as a power. To which my response is they can try to do it, but the person who has the power will always be better at doing it (all other things being equal). Maybe the person with the power gets a bonus to performing the ability that the other doesn't. Maybe the other can't do it as efficiently and has to expend more of their action resources in a round. None of this prevents others from doing these things, it just means you should design the resolution of attempts to do these thing without having the power in a manner that makes them less effective, less efficient, or less likely to succeed than the manner given for people with the power.
Also, as to whether feats stifle creativity, feats themselves open up a whole new avenue for expressing creativity in the creation of feats.
I kind of feel the same way. In the previous two editions of the game, I came to see feats as just a min/maxer's tool to try and break the system with the ultimate +1,000,000 to whatever one trick pony build the player wanted. Or they were patches on the system so certain concepts work better: like having a mounted knight's steed not be so much of an Achilles heel for the archetype. And I say this as a bit of an optimizer myself. They were too open ended and unbounded in many cases, or too narrow in many others. At least with spells you get a level, School, Class list and such.
When 5e came out, I looked at the +5/-10 feats and thought: "Yep, the same old thing again. They just copped out by making them 'optional'." Now I'm not so sure. Maybe my mellowing it influenced by WOTC's restraint in not releasing a mountainous slew of feat bloat to overload the system, but I think some feats, or other gizmos, to increase character options by spending a resource aren't all bad. Increasing weapon or armor access, or the pseudo-multiclassing ones, say.
I do think some of the feats in the OP could be eliminated by more guidelines on using skills. I say guidelines because we don't want a pause for 10 minutes "rousing speech time" before every combat because the bard has +x to Perform and a high charisma. Leave it up to the DM for some wiggle room. Maybe everyone who has reached a certain proficiency in survival does not have to roll to determine North. Someone with a certain proficiency with handle animal skill can force attacks that target the mount to target them instead. Or someone with proficiency in both perform & deception can make a charisma (deception) check to imitate someone's voice. Maybe its just a feature of poll arms that they can stop movement on OA? Hopefully this could be done without going too much down the "mother may I" path.
When 5e came out, I looked at the +5/-10 feats and thought: "Yep, the same old thing again. They just copped out by making them 'optional'." Now I'm not so sure. Maybe my mellowing it influenced by WOTC's restraint in not releasing a mountainous slew of feat bloat to overload the system, but I think some feats, or other gizmos, to increase character options by spending a resource aren't all bad. Increasing weapon or armor access, or the pseudo-multiclassing ones, say.
I do think some of the feats in the OP could be eliminated by more guidelines on using skills. I say guidelines because we don't want a pause for 10 minutes "rousing speech time" before every combat because the bard has +x to Perform and a high charisma. Leave it up to the DM for some wiggle room. Maybe everyone who has reached a certain proficiency in survival does not have to roll to determine North. Someone with a certain proficiency with handle animal skill can force attacks that target the mount to target them instead. Or someone with proficiency in both perform & deception can make a charisma (deception) check to imitate someone's voice. Maybe its just a feature of poll arms that they can stop movement on OA? Hopefully this could be done without going too much down the "mother may I" path.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Eh... if we go with unfettered make believe as the purest form of freedom, but I'm not sure this is true. The rules provide both a framework to corral and focus imagination and also the means by which players can agree who's imagination is in charge in various points. What [MENTION=6785438]Warmaster Horus[/MENTION] says above is very true: the rules can assign authority to who's imagination rules. If we went freeform, then we'd have a hard time claiming we're playing the same games and finding others to play our special versions of games. Freedom that reduces the ability to play may not be an unquestioned good. Or, I suppose where I'm headed is that freedom as you've posed it doesn't necessarily improve the game.
MechaPilot
Explorer
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.
darkrose50
First Post
Mostly I think that additional options are neat.
I would love to have point values for the feats.
I would love to have different categories of feats: combat, exploration and social.
I am working on a set of house rules for when it is my turn to run (and just for fun as something to do at work when it is slow).
I figure feats should range in cost from 1 to 6, and be measured in ability point-buy points. I figure that going from a 16 to an 18 would be 6-points (3-points per ability increase). A character would get 2-points per level (including 1st).
I would love to have point values for the feats.
I would love to have different categories of feats: combat, exploration and social.
I am working on a set of house rules for when it is my turn to run (and just for fun as something to do at work when it is slow).
I figure feats should range in cost from 1 to 6, and be measured in ability point-buy points. I figure that going from a 16 to an 18 would be 6-points (3-points per ability increase). A character would get 2-points per level (including 1st).
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
The basic paradox of creativity is that defined limits have a much greater tendency to enhance creativity than decrease it.
That's not universal, and I think there are definitely extremes possible where that can be the case. But if you give the typical player one of two statements:
"You can do anything you can think of!"
vs.
"Here is a list of some of things you can do!"
...the typical player's imagination is more likely to be spurred much further along by the latter than the former. Call it analysis paralysis, or blank page syndrome, or whatever.
As for feats in general, yeah, a feat (or feat feature) that says you can do something that anybody else should be able to try is probably bad design. I'm not entirely certain Actor qualifies.
First off, perfect mimicry is not easy. Even some of the best impressionists don't sound exactly like the person they're impersonating. Trying to fool somebody else who might be familiar with that person/creature noise (which is the only reason I can think of to even try to do this in the first place) shouldn't be as simple as beating an opposed roll. If the Actor feat says you can do it with a simple opposed roll, that gives guidance to me, as a DM, to say that anyone without the feat does so at disadvantage.
Of course, that might not even be necessary, considering the second feature of Actor gives the PC advantage on all Charisma (Deception) checks made to pass themselves off as another individual, which applies to basically every relevant use of the third feature I can think of (except maybe the creature noise part if you want to get pedantic, but I can understand why "sound like a non-humanoid creature" should be a bit more difficult than "sound like a specific humanoid").
That's not universal, and I think there are definitely extremes possible where that can be the case. But if you give the typical player one of two statements:
"You can do anything you can think of!"
vs.
"Here is a list of some of things you can do!"
...the typical player's imagination is more likely to be spurred much further along by the latter than the former. Call it analysis paralysis, or blank page syndrome, or whatever.
As for feats in general, yeah, a feat (or feat feature) that says you can do something that anybody else should be able to try is probably bad design. I'm not entirely certain Actor qualifies.
First off, perfect mimicry is not easy. Even some of the best impressionists don't sound exactly like the person they're impersonating. Trying to fool somebody else who might be familiar with that person/creature noise (which is the only reason I can think of to even try to do this in the first place) shouldn't be as simple as beating an opposed roll. If the Actor feat says you can do it with a simple opposed roll, that gives guidance to me, as a DM, to say that anyone without the feat does so at disadvantage.
Of course, that might not even be necessary, considering the second feature of Actor gives the PC advantage on all Charisma (Deception) checks made to pass themselves off as another individual, which applies to basically every relevant use of the third feature I can think of (except maybe the creature noise part if you want to get pedantic, but I can understand why "sound like a non-humanoid creature" should be a bit more difficult than "sound like a specific humanoid").
Agreed, but that problem goes both ways. If a player role-plays a situation eloquently like a seasoned thespian, but he put an 8 dump stat into Charisma...
I have gotten in the habit of using a range of numbers instead of a static DC (e.g. 8+1d4 instead of a 10, or 9+1d6 instead of a 15, etc). I will roll the DC if the player just rolls, but if the player role-plays the attempt (whatever it may be) I will gravitate towards the low end of the range based upon how well the player does. Likewise, I'll pick the high end if the player puts no thought or description into the effort.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
No, no shift at all. The conditions I mentioned were quoted in the very quote you provided, it's just you ignored them the first time. It was in fact a strawman when you characterized my position as non-conditional when in fact it was conditional from the start. Same goalposts involved here, just you not apparently reading what you were replying to very carefully? How much more can I clarify it here, given you appear to be very argumentative from the get-go on this for some reason?
If you have a reply to what I said, great let's hear it. There is no point to you replying to a position I don't hold. We agree that none of this involves a DM who is disallowed to make checks for these issues even with the feat in the game.
I am still waiting for your point. You seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't say. That's not a point.
Your stating I was blanket disagreeing with you (and now I regret trimming the quote before addressing all points) is a strawman too.
My point eas the only other part of my original post you didn't adress. Which also happened to give context to all the bits you did quote.
Edit: Seperated it out from Skulker: These feats don't stop a player from trying, it stops a player with the feat from failing.
Similar Threads
