Robert J. Schwalb Blog Discussion; Feats: Do We need them?

[ggroy]

Obviously, the interesting thing for me is how 4e Powers beat up 3e feats and stole all their good stuff (and added further good stuff in too). 4e feats in my opinion are best thought of as the mechanical and flavour dross left over after this process. They are a mechanic left in limbo, kind of needed to round out the pointy edges left by the 4e machine, but not the most entertaining or motivating element of character development (some will obviously differ in opinion on this one). For all of that, I think they are necessary unless some new class/race/background mechanic can absorb the dross.

One approach they've tried in 4E Essentials, is the system of fighter stances and rogue tricks being tacked on to the movement action and/or basic melee/ranged attacks. Fighter stances are tacked onto the basic melee attacks, while rogue tricks modify the movement actions and basic melee/ranged attacks.

This approach seems to be starting off from the basic movement and basic melee/ranged attacks. Additional effects to the basic movement and/or basic attacks, are invoked via a minor action in the form of a stance or trick.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is certainly an over-abundance of crap feats in 4e. Maybe they're meant to be filler, maybe they were just badly designed, but there are a lot of them, and most of them aren't worth taking.

Feats are a great way to customize characters. So, yes, we need them.

Feats are /not/ a great way to fix a math error, or bolster an underpowered class, or shoehorn a race with the wrong stat bonus into a class its fluff implies it should be good at, or generally fine-tune the game without copping to a mistake.

But, sure, Mr. Schwalb, go ahead and over-correct. Throw that baby out with the bathwater.

 

[FireLance]

I kind of like the idea of feats as customization. I like the possibility of picking abilities that define your character beyond [race] and [class], or picking up abilities that reinforce your identity as [race] or [class]. I like the way that multiclass feats are able to represent dabbling into another class. I think it would be a pity if that potential for customization is lost.

 

[delericho]

The problem with feats in 4e is that it's not clearly defined what they do. Thus, they try to do many different things for many different people, and end up being a mess (and a bloated mess, to boot).

Basically, I think feats should offer small numerical ways to customise a character. I would suggest the following:

Feats should offer small, always-on bonuses to particular numerical aspects of a character. Weapon Focus, Skill Focus, Toughness and the like are all suitable feats. A feat should not allow a character to do something he couldn't do previously (that should be a power, or just a action that can be taken), and should not be circumstance-dependent (a feat shouldn't give +1 Will defense vs Illusion powers, for example).

(If you can't precalculate the effect of a feat and write it on the 'standard' character sheet, it shouldn't be a feat.)

The prerequisites for feats should be limited to other feats only. There should be no class-specific or race-specific feats (again, make them powers, or simply actions that can be taken). Feats should not be even be tied to ability scores.

Characters should gain a feat at every even-numbered level. That is, they don't even get a feat at 1st level (unless Human).

The effect of this will be to drastically cut down on the number of available feats. Indeed, it might be possible for the PHB1 to include all of the feats that can ever exist.

This would also make feats fairly dull. However, I don't think that's necessarily a problem - there are plenty of other things for players to choose that are more interesting (primarily powers). But I think they have a place - they allow players the opportunity to specialise their characters just a bit - one more way of making Joe the Fighter distinct from Bob the Fighter.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Feats are awesome. The 4e implementation of feats is seriously flawed.

My hope for 5e is that they refine the implementation of feats, strengthen the rules describing how skills can be used in combat, shift the focus from class powers to skill powers, increase the number of at-will and encounter powers that characters get, and add more class-specific non-attack powers like the stances, aspects and tricks from Essentials.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

A feat should not allow a character to do something he couldn't do previously (that should be a power, or just a action that can be taken)

I disagree. I love feats like Roll With It, for example. You could make it a power, and that would be fine, but then you would need more power slots or it would just displace something else.

 

[delericho]

I disagree. I love feats like Roll With It, for example. You could make it a power, and that would be fine, but then you would need more power slots or it would just displace something else.

I see no problem with giving characters more powers. More powers is awesome.

But it's a really good idea to silo "what a character can do" away from "the numerical bonuses he uses to do it". Failing to do this can lead to a player selecting a single 'trick' for his character, and then throwing everything at improving his bonus with that one thing.

This naturally leads to that one player dominating the game where his 'trick' applies, and then whining like crazy in those rare situations where it does not. Neither of these is much fun for everyone else.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

The argument between feats or no feats is essentially the argument between AD&D and original/basic D&D.

AD&D is all about using the rules to customize your character.

With original/basic D&D, a fighter is a fighter is a fighter as far as the rules are concerned; the only customization is provided by however you roleplay one vs. the other.

I will say that to most new and casual players, in my experience, feats are not worth the pain. They confuse the character building and leveling-up process, they are often forgotten in play, and they generally contribute to the perception of D&D being "hard".

Running D&D Encounters, I'm starting to appreciate some of the changes Essentials brought to these new and casual players. If there's one place Essentials didn't go far enough, I now think it should have gotten rid of feats entirely. Math feats should have been built into the system, racial feats should have been incorporated into the race write-ups and level-up process, class feats should have been incorporated into the class write-ups and level-up process. All the little "cute" feats go away, just like rituals. Something like every even level you gain a new, prescribed class enhancement and every odd level you gain a new, prescribed race enhancement. But: woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[TwoSix]

Currently the system allows you to customize your character (mechanically) along these axes:

1) Race
2) Class
3) Theme
4) Paragon Path
5) Epic Destiny
6) Proficiencies
7) Ability Scores
8) Power Choices
9) Skills
10) Feats


Now, these subsystems are all interconnected. The first 5 act as filters to the last 5, while occasionally providing changes to the numerical underpinnings of the character. Ability scores and proficiencies provide numerical values to the two active (usable during the game) parts of the system, the skills and the powers.

Feats act as the lowest level of customization. Filtered by the above choices, they provide the only system that allows for sub-power control over a power's expression (adding a push 1 to a weapon power, for example, or +2 damage to fire powers). But, they also allow modifiers to the large-scale filters provided race, class, etc., by allowing more power choices, additional power choices (in the form of skill powers), and modifying other direct mechanics provided by race, class, and ability score choice (such as HP and Defenses).

So there's a few issues with feat replacements.

A) Do you allow for modification below the level of power choice? If so, how do you allow for it?
B) Should you be able to directly modify system numbers beyond the calculations made by your character choices?

Personal feeling? Yes to A, no to B. I think the feat effects we want to keep can be baked into the system by allowing for passive effect powers, which would fall under utility powers. Allow attack power choice at odd levels, utility at even. Have each race with their own tree of selectable powers that mimic the effects of the feats. Have more utility skill powers, and develop themes (an underused design space) to support feat-like customization.

 

[delericho]

The argument between feats or no feats is essentially the argument between AD&D and original/basic D&D.

AD&D is all about using the rules to customize your character.

That's really not the impression I get when reading the 1st Edition rulebooks (as I am currently doing). Although there are some customisation options, there really aren't too many.

A lot more customisation came in with 2nd Edition, first by bringing non-weapon proficiencies to the core, and then (especially) adding hundreds of Kits.

3e of course took it all a long way further.

Something like every even level you gain a new, prescribed class enhancement and every odd level you gain a new, prescribed race enhancement. But: woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Problem is that you pretty much have to keep plenty of scope for players to customise their characters, or the hard-core will lose interest and go elsewhere.

The best way to handle both needs is either to have several classes of each type (a "simple Fighter", a "complex Fighter", and a "medium Fighter"), or to provide broad, customisable classes, but also to offer pre-generated builds for new players. (4e Classic did this, and it was a good idea. Sadly, the pre-chosen builds were generally very weak.)

Also...

All the little "cute" feats go away, just like rituals.

Rituals were one of the very best improvements in 4e. Their removal in Essentials was a big mistake. IMO, of course.