Hey, look at that!
More powerful feats gained at higher levels, just like spells! Who would ever come up with such a crazy idea!
Truth be told... I'm not really sure how this new idea of theirs for feats is really going to work in practice. There are several issues at play:
1) Some players have such a visceral hatred to the word "feat" that even if you say to those players/DMs who don't want to use feats that instead they just give out +1 to an ability score... they're not going to see it that way. While the use of
feats are still not mandatory in the game... because there will be points in the advancement chart that a feat
could be taken (in place of the +1)... they're still going to
consider it mandatory and thus rail about it. Since the advancement chart is mandatory, and those points on the chart are there... ipso facto feats are mandatory (even if none of the actual feats themselves are ever taken in the game). And no amount of explanation of why they are thinking that way is not technically correct is going to change their minds about it.
2) The desire to have "feats" in the game are ruining the split between maneuvers and tricks that fighters and rogue should have as part of their class features... and the cool, little abilities any class should have to give them flavor. This is what my entire thread has been railing against.
While I agree with what Mike says in that Fighters and Rogues should get more feats in order to give them extra spaces for the selection of "maneuvers" and "tricks" that actually flesh out their work as an effective class... keeping those abilities in the giant category of "feats" is a waste of time, and also more of a guarantee that many players won't ever see maneuvers and tricks as anything other than an abomination (when in fact, they should be seen exactly as Spells are.)
I am just at a loss to figure out why maneuvers and tricks need to be put into that kind of super-category? I presume it's because the thought is that if some players do not want to use feats at all... they also wouldn't want to use maneuvers and tricks to make Fighters and Rogues with the same sort of selection power the Cleric and Wizard does currently with Spells. Which, even after all this time, I still just can't understand. Is it merely just tradition that says it's completely fine for the Cleric and Wizard to be complex enough that they have to make a selection from a large list every couple of levels (to get spells) but the Fighter and the Rogue having the same thing is an anathema? Those two aren't allowed to be just as "complex" as the Cleric and Wizard?
Yes... that is the tradition of Dungeons & Dragons-- the two martial classes are the easysauce classes and the two spellcasting classes are the "hard" ones... but isn't it about time we lost THAT sacred cow? All it's doing is creating a pair of ghetto classes that the "poor, unwashed gamer masses" have to play because they're the easy ones, while the "more sophisticated" gamer can play the spellcaster because only they are capable of
taking 2 godamned minutes to read a couple spells from a short list and then choosing one. Jeez, does that piss me off! The fact that we dumb down the development of the game because the Fighter and Rogue aren't allowed to make the same SINGLE select of a maneuver or a feat from a small list because that's just TOO HARD. Ugh!!!
And what's worse about this... is that we could easily STILL MAKE THE PROCESS SIMPLE by just having the Basic game Fighter and Rogue get ASSIGNED a specific maneuver or trick in those slots and consider them CLASS FEATURES. If they would just do this... we wouldn't have to go through the rigamarole of trying to balance the exchange of feats for +1s to ability scores (which is what I'm most skeptical of.) Because, look... they apparently learned early on in the development of the Expertise Dice that given the choice between using the dice to power a maneuver or using it for extra damage... extra damage won out almost all the time. The simple method was the most effective. So what do we think is going to happen with this "feats for +1s" exchange? I'm pretty sure it's going to be spending every feat slot to get your primary score to 20 as quickly as possible, THEN make the hard decision whether raising your secondary scores are still better than taking an ability. My guess is that we're going to be all martial characters upping their CON to 20 ASAP too.
I said it above in this thread, and I'll say it again... here is what I think each Core Four class should get as part of their basic foundation:
At certain levels, the Fighter gets a special combat Maneuver from a small list that allows him to do something cool in combat that other classes can't do. Whether that's Cleaving through multiple enemies, Precisely Shooting enemies at range and ignoring cover penalties, Parrying an attack against himself or an adjacent ally, or being Durable and rolling their hit die twice and taking the higher result. And for those DMs and games that think having a Fighter select a couple of these Maneuvers is too difficult to play... these Fighters instead get a specific class feature ability instead (which just coincidentally matches a selected maneuver in the game). So at 1st level, all Basic fighters as a class feature roll twice when rolling hit dice and take the higher result.
For Rogues... at certain levels they get to select a special expert Trick from a small list that allows him to do something cool out of combat that other classes can't do. Whether that's Hiding in Shadows and only needing Lightly Obscured or Dim Light areas instead of Heavily Obscured areas to hide, Climbing Shear Surfaces where you no longer only move at half-speed when climbing walls but instead can do so at full speed, or using your Superior Footwork to remain standing when you otherwise would fall prone. And for those DMs and games that think having a Rogue select a couple of these Tricks is too difficult to play... these Rogues instead get a specific class feature ability instead (which just coincidentally matches a selected trick in the game). So at 1st level, all Basic Rogues as a class feature can climb shear surfaces at their normal speed.
The Clerics and Wizards? They select their Spells from a small list the same as they ever did.
And then to make things fluffier for all four of these classes... we layer on a series of Styles, Schemes, Deities, and Traditions that bundle a lot of these options into a flavorful package that a Standard game player can select. And these packages give slight character benefits in exchange for having less choice. So the Fighter can select a fighting Style that demarcates exactly at what level they get a specific Maneuver, and in return they get something cool as part of the Style. Same with the Rogue selecting a Scheme, same with the Cleric selecting a Deity, same with the Wizard selecting a Tradition.
Then...
On top of these class feature selections... Standard players can select from a series of Backgrounds that give their character some skills... and Traits that give their characters some universal abilities that anyone can take-- abilities that are broad and not so powerful that if a DM chooses NOT to use them... the PCs are not gimped in comparison. Does a game where no one can be an Herbalist make them massively unbalanced compared to one where they can? I don't think so. Or one where no one can Ambush and retain their hidden condition for the turn even if they were seen prior to the attack? Nope. These (and other Traits) should be cool character defining stuff... but not such a big deal if characters don't get 4 or 5 of them because the DM chooses not to use Traits in the game.
********
The only reason why this hasn't happened and (if I'm completely honest) probably won't happen, is because Mike and some others like the idea of Feats just too much. And thus every single possible character ability that isn't a SPELL is going to be kept in this big box...
theoretically with the idea that they are open to EVERYONE to select... but
in reality only certain ones will ever go to certain classes because they are absolutely ineffective to others. But heaven forbid we just admit that and split them up into separate boxes to begin with.
This lack of clarity about "what is the purpose of a feat?" is a clear indicator to me that they should be jettisoned unless they actually find a need/purpose for them. A lot of the character differentiation job seems to have been handed to backgrounds and sub-classes. If that works...then great! Use them! Don't keep feats around cluttering up the design just because they were in the last two editions.
