Feats and How to Ruin Them

[Crazy Jerome]

There is a huge problem with this, and that's analysis paralysis. If you have just the PHB, it's still ok, but if every little character customization ever is dumped into the feat system, you end up with thousands of feats spread around dozens of splatbooks and dragon articles and you never know what ended up where. Making a character becomes an exercise in sifting through piles of material, 90% of which doesn't make any sense for your character at all. You practically have to consult a build guide just because you don't want to spend a whole day discarding crap.

That's not the worst of it. if everything is built from feats, then it is now truly a feat-based game instead of a class-based one. A feat-based game might be an interesting variant on a point-based game, but I suspect the different values of different feats would lead to a lot of siloing that eventually got ... point totals. If I wanted D&D to be GURPS or Hero System, I'd play those instead. For better or worse, D&D has to be class-based, and it has to be truly class-based, not merely a class veneer over some other base.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

That's not the worst of it. if everything is built from feats, then it is now truly a feat-based game instead of a class-based one. A feat-based game might be an interesting variant on a point-based game, but I suspect the different values of different feats would lead to a lot of siloing that eventually got ... point totals. If I wanted D&D to be GURPS or Hero System, I'd play those instead. For better or worse, D&D has to be class-based, and it has to be truly class-based, not merely a class veneer over some other base.

Not necessarily. In the vast majority of cases, class features and feats are practically identical is power scope. I'm simply calling for balancing them against each other and using the same name. Not unlike the talents in Saga Edition. You would still get Class feats in order as per class features, and most racial feats would be gained during character creation because they're really racial features.

The only significant difference I'm requesting is that normal feats be grouped thematically instead of just alphabetically. It's the alphabetic list of feats that I find daunting.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think feats should be sub-siloed. I have no problem with +mod feats if they are siloed into their own catagory where everybody gets one. That way nobody would be without one and it would not be a tax.

For example if everybody gets a +1 specialization feat to a weapon or implement.

What's the purpose of this?

Why does it need to be in the game system at all?

This is the aspect of feats that I don't like: mechanical bonuses to combat.

If there are going to be mechanical bonuses to combat, I'd prefer feats like Armor Proficiency. It allows a given class that doesn't have an ability to gain that ability, but at a cost. This is a boost to defense, but it requires other prerequisites (like the strength to acquire the feat and to wear the armor) and by definition, if someone is wearing Hide armor, they can no longer use their magic leather armor and have to go out and find magic Hide armor. Trade offs.

Bonuses to hit and damage, meh. Boring and potentially game disrupting (like the frost cheese).

The core combat mechanics don't need to hit and damage feats and if they don't exist, they cannot break the math. Even feats like Improved Initiative are preferable to +1 to hit. +1 to hit just means yet another opportunity for the math to get broken. One +1 bonus for a PC doesn't do it, but +1 from this feat, +1 from that feat, +1 from this magic item, +1 from that Paragon class, +1 from this spell. It all adds up until the optimization boards have PCs that almost never miss.

 

[Li Shenron]

I understand what you don't want feats to do, but I don't understand what you do want them to do. Give me an example of what a good feat is for you.

I've never had a problem with the idea of feats that (a) give you a bonus, (b) take away a penalty (so that something normally hard becomes a valid option), or (c) speed up the action needed to do something. I might have issues with specific feats, but not with these concepts.

Also I generally believe that versatility is power, so also feats that give you an extra option have generally been fine for me. Those include (d) feats which give you a new combat trick, (e) metamagic feats, (f) divine feats and (g) item creation feats. I didn't even have a problem with (ta-daa!) Leadership.

At least all the above are valid concepts for me about stuff that feats can grant.

I can however understand that for some people flexibility doesn't equal power. I would not be against a system where all the above except (a) and (b) would not be feats but instead would be rules, i.e. available to everyone by default, as long as doing so doesn't result in some classes lagging behind versatility (such as Rogues, which AFAIK didn't get many "roguish" feats, and those were almost always straight bonuses).

 

[GunbladeKnight]

One thing I would like to see is feats still be useful at higher levels. Sure, at first level 3 or 5 hit points might be nice, but get to level 5 and it seems like a drop in a bucket. Or +1 to hit with a specific weapon gets negligible at 15th level when you either auto-hit with anything but a 1 or only hit on a 20.

 

[BobTheNob]

One thing I would like to see is feats still be useful at higher levels. Sure, at first level 3 or 5 hit points might be nice, but get to level 5 and it seems like a drop in a bucket. Or +1 to hit with a specific weapon gets negligible at 15th level when you either auto-hit with anything but a 1 or only hit on a 20.

As far as the +1 bonus is concerned, well, thats assuming that they arent going to flatten the number system, which they have pretty much indicated they are. Its also a bit 3e in its observation where a problem like what you describe would exist, but spending a feat for a +1 bonus in 4e was as good an idea at level 1 as it was at level 30.

Agree with the Hit point one though. The value of a feat granting a flat HP bonus degrades over time.

Mind you, Im not a fan of feats that are a simple +X bonus in general.

 

[GM Dave]

The problem that I have with the +1 concept to skills or attacks or damage to represent that you are a 'dedicated' specialist is that soon every player needs to have a similar bonus to 'keep' up.

Then it is the monsters and NPCs that need the same bonus to 'keep' up.

It becomes a mindset and a goal to accumulate more pluses to again establish the character is 'better' than the rest.

Yet, the more bonuses from things accumulated doesn't really make the character feel more special and personalized which is the point of trying to show that they are special.

Eliminate the idea of plus anything and think of interesting ways that people can do things that can make them feel unique and better than the rest.

This is why I'm not upset when a player spends a feat to take a spell that they might normally be able to cast once per encounter/day and make it possible to cast more than once per encounter/day.

An even better option is to give the player a new option on what they can do during the combat. Instead of a fighter just swinging a sword they have the option to bash with their shield.

You haven't added real 'power' because the player still makes an attack but the bash with a shield gives a different feel on a combat round and might have a slightly different mechanic. Most times sword swings will be good but every few fights the ability to bash with a shield might be a real benefit.

 

[Mercule]

I'm going to agree with one thing, in particular: Feats should not be a vast miscellany of forgotten abilities. They try to be too many things to too many people. I think the answer is to parse them out into other systems -- some of which may be new.

I'm not sure whether the tiered skill system is going to come to pass (I kinda hope it does). If so, you won't be seeing Rogues with 32 starting skill points. I'm not sure anything but a skill monkey class even warrants getting a skill point every level, under that model. Some feats (Tracking immediately springs to mind) are little more than a modification of how a skill works. Crib the 3.5 skill tricks system and let people choose whether to get better-deeper or better-broader with a skill. Not entirely sure that some things like TWF, Weapon Finesse, and Spell Focus don't belong here, though I'm not quite ready to advocate it.

Other feats are really geared toward a specific class or set of classes. Maybe these should be turned into selectable class features, kinda like the Rogue had in 3e. There might be some duplication, but it would serve the three-fold purposes of thinning the herd of feats, building a customization mechanic into classes, and giving some focus to the ineffable splat-books. My understanding is that 3e feats started out as a fighter-specific mechanic. Even if not true, it's believable.

So, what would I leave in the feats category? Thinks that tweak characters in ways that don't just make them a better fighter, wizard, etc. Really, if there are any feats that are brain-dead for members of a certain class (or race) to take, they shouldn't be feats. The 4e PHB had enough of these that I thought 4e had actually made that shift.

 

[pemerton]

I think feats should be sub-siloed. I have no problem with +mod feats if they are siloed into their own catagory where everybody gets one. That way nobody would be without one and it would not be a tax.

For example if everybody gets a +1 specialization feat to a weapon or implement.

But this feeds a differenent potential problem, namely, hyperspecialisation - as soon as you drop your sword and pick up an axe (for example), you're hosed!

 

[mkill]

Not necessarily. In the vast majority of cases, class features and feats are practically identical is power scope. I'm simply calling for balancing them against each other and using the same name. Not unlike the talents in Saga Edition. You would still get Class feats in order as per class features...

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice this is the 3E Fighter. That didn't turn out so well.