D&D 5E How They Should Do Feats

[Falling Icicle]

I really dislike the way they're doing feats now. While I like the idea of being able to trade in feats for ability score increases in principle, I dislike the current implementation. Since taking a feat means you miss out on ability score increases, many, if not most players will opt to at least max out their primary ability score first. That means most players won't even get a feat at all until level 8, if not even later. I also hate not getting a feat at 1st level. They seem to think that people will be overwhelmed by choices, but that is just not my experience (and I find it actually a bit insulting). Newer players can have a veteran player help them, or they can just opt to take an ability increase instead. That's not hard.

Here's how I think they should do feats:
* Characters get a +1 ability score increase at every 4 character levels (4, 8, 12, etc).
* Characters get a feat at 1st level, 3rd level and every 3 character levels thereafter, like 3e (1, 3, 6, 9, etc).
* A character can exhange a feat for a +1 ability score increase.

Breaking it down this way accomplishes several things:
* People aren't "punished" for taking feats. They still get precious ability score increases.
* By having smaller feats, players have a much greater ability to customize their characters compared to the bulk package feats they're using now.
* Feats are still entirely optional. People who hate feats can still trade them for ability score increases; feats are just worth 1 ability point instead of 2.
* A character who trades every feat for an ability increase would have +12 total ability points by level 20. That sounds like alot, but that's only a couple more than what most classes in the last playtest packet get. That's a +6 difference in ability modifiers (which is what actually matters) for the cost of taking no feats whatsoever. I think that's fair and not at all game breaking, especially with the ability score cap of 20.

 

[Zardnaar]

Go back to 3rd and 4th ed type feats but eliminate the crap ones and pay more attention to feat design. Eliminate most of the +1/+2 rubbish. Feats as optional beocme +1 stat boosts.

Then again they could ditch feats entirely and have no stat boost and that would not bother me either.

 

[KiloGex]

You do realize that 5E is attempting to get rid of the power creep that was started in 3E and continued in 4E, right? After all, your character isn't even considered a true adventurer until 3rd level. By 20th level, they want your characters to be near super-human, but not god-like as it was in the previous 2 editions. This is why they offer you either an ability boost or a feat every 4th level.

However, to make sure that it's worthwhile for you to give up a +2 to an ability score, every feat is multiple feats in one. This gets rid of the need to take multiple prerequisite feats just to get to the one you actually like. After all, does anyone actually use Combat Expertise? I doubt it. And a +1 to your ranged attacks within 30' is nice, but ultimately you only take PBS for the Many, Rapid, and Precise Shot feats. So having to stack feats like that it made sense in 3E to give you a feat every 3 levels, or in 4E every other level (which is just insane, by the way).

With all of this, I'm happy in the way that they're doing it, and quite enjoy the slower ramp of power increase. For me, I'm going to choose Archery Master and Arcane Archer before I even think about increasing my Wisdom, and I'm also going to choose Alert, Dual Wielder, Fencing Master, Lucky, Mobile, and Stealthy instead of throwing a couple of points into Dexterity. That's the great thing about D&D in general: choice.

 

[Atomo]

Maybe is just here on my home campaign, but we started from 1st level, the players are currently at 8th and NO ONE of them even considered stat boosts. Everyone got feats.

 

[Sadrik]

This is something that I proposed months ago and it is a major stickler for me with the game.

They flipped what I think their target audiences want and basically are not accomplishing what they think they are.

They wanted feats that were simple and less fiddly so they made triple sized feats and balanced them against a stat boost.

For players/DMs looking for simplicity, stat boosts are the assumed thing.

The only problem is they have jam packed classes with class features at every level. Classes now have what amounts to all those little fiddly feats but they are static, offering no choice. So the only way to get them is to multi-class.

Feats are big eventful choices. They add a whole new feature to your character. Blah...

I want them to flip that. I want class features to be big eventful choices, something where the choice of multi-classing means something. I want feats to be smaller and less important choice that add to your character (split up the triple feats) paired with a +1 stat pump.

So the player who wants to really key into their character and fine tune it does not have the ability to do that in 5e. Most of their choices are made at character generation. The get a few feats and spell selections throughout their career.

The player who does not want to deal with many minute bonuses has to anyway because they receive a mini class feature every level. It does not seem to match the goals they set for themselves.

Found my old postings:
Everything still makes sense.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340520-LL-Subclasses-and-Complexity/page9

 

[Sunseeker]

I still think that players should earn feat points. This way there would be a mathematical value for each feat, also eliminating the long-chain prerequisites(or offering a route to bypass them), and that way all feats would be balanced against each other, instead of one feat offering a +1 to X, and another offering a +1 to X, and +1 to Y and +1 to Z for the same slot.

 

[Falling Icicle]

You do realize that 5E is attempting to get rid of the power creep that was started in 3E and continued in 4E, right?

Feats do not have to = "power creep." While I prefer 3e/4e type feats, I want them to be well designed and balanced.

After all, your character isn't even considered a true adventurer until 3rd level.

That's something that's new to this edition, and one of the few things about it I don't like.

By 20th level, they want your characters to be near super-human, but not god-like as it was in the previous 2 editions. This is why they offer you either an ability boost or a feat every 4th level.

Feats are not what made characters overpowered at high level. A 2nd edition 20th level wizard is far more powerful than a 3e 20th level fighter, even with its 18 or so feats.

However, to make sure that it's worthwhile for you to give up a +2 to an ability score, every feat is multiple feats in one. This gets rid of the need to take multiple prerequisite feats just to get to the one you actually like. After all, does anyone actually use Combat Expertise? I doubt it. And a +1 to your ranged attacks within 30' is nice, but ultimately you only take PBS for the Many, Rapid, and Precise Shot feats. So having to stack feats like that it made sense in 3E to give you a feat every 3 levels, or in 4E every other level (which is just insane, by the way).

Crap feats are crap feats, and don't have to exist - period. Just because there were some bad feats in 3rd and 4th editions doesn't mean there would have to be any in Next.

And getting a feat every other level (which isn't what I proposed, btw) isn't "insane." Both 4e and Pathfinder do that, and I never heard anyone complain that they were getting too many feats in those games.

With all of this, I'm happy in the way that they're doing it, and quite enjoy the slower ramp of power increase. For me, I'm going to choose Archery Master and Arcane Archer before I even think about increasing my Wisdom, and I'm also going to choose Alert, Dual Wielder, Fencing Master, Lucky, Mobile, and Stealthy instead of throwing a couple of points into Dexterity. That's the great thing about D&D in general: choice.

Having fewer feats means people get fewer choices, not more. People would have far more choices if the feats were broken down and people could pick the individual parts rather than being forced to take a package deal, whether they want all that other stuff or not.

The problem I have with the "super feats" is that they make characters very same-y and cookie cutter. Everyone who wants to be an archer is going to take Archery Master, and that's that. I also dislike the feats like Loremaster, which I feel just give too much stuff at once. There isn't any way to gain one skill or language at a time, as you'd think people would, instead BAM! you suddenly get 3 langauges and skills instantly. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

[1of3]

Feats are great as they are.

 

[Sadras]

Feats are great as they are.

This! and

Maybe is just here on my home campaign, but we started from 1st level, the players are currently at 8th and NO ONE of them even considered stat boosts. Everyone got feats.

This. I'm finding the same - I believe a player's choices are influence strongly (not exclusively) by the DMing style within the campaign.

Feats are not what made characters overpowered at high level. A 2nd edition 20th level wizard is far more powerful than a 3e 20th level fighter, even with its 18 or so feats.

That is not a fair comparison at all. Firstly you are comparing two VERY different classes and secondly you are comparing them across editions.

And getting a feat every other level (which isn't what I proposed, btw) isn't "insane." Both 4e and Pathfinder do that, and I never heard anyone complain that they were getting too many feats in those games.

D&DN is striving for a simpler system hence less feats and that makes sense in its evolution given what has come before. It is much better to create a simple system that encourages DMs in a creative way or supplements books to build on said simpler system. And I would expect players of 4E and Pathfinder to enjoy the feat system, hence their lack of complaints

Having fewer feats means people get fewer choices, not more. People would have far more choices if the feats were broken down and people could pick the individual parts rather than being forced to take a package deal, whether they want all that other stuff or not.

Simpler base system allows for innovation and creativity to mold it into your perfect system. If you do not like the feats as package deals, break them up and allow the characters to gain a mini-feat benefit every second level. It is all there and easy to do, no biggie. The simple core system allows for that and that way you don't create the cookie cutter characters you dislike. Hell, add your own mini-feats that you want from previous editions.

I also dislike the feats like Loremaster, which I feel just give too much stuff at once. There isn't any way to gain one skill or language at a time, as you'd think people would, instead BAM! you suddenly get 3 langauges and skills instantly. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.

Perhaps for Loremaster, the character needs downtime to learn these additional languages or skills - throw that in as a requirement for PCs if you do not like it. If I started a campaign at 10th level, and one of the characters chose Loremaster - I would let him choose his languages/skills immediately (such a feat is required/valuable) however if a character was leveling up and selected that feat out of the blue without expressing any interest early about languages/skills, well I would impose the requirement of downtime before he could benefit, other DMs might be more lenient and that is great to. But certainly I see the value of such feat.

 

[delericho]

Here's how I think they should do feats:
* Characters get a +1 ability score increase at every 4 character levels (4, 8, 12, etc).
* Characters get a feat at 1st level, 3rd level and every 3 character levels thereafter, like 3e (1, 3, 6, 9, etc).

Those two are fine, if that's the way that they want to go. It wouldn't be my preference, but it's not particularly problematic.

* A character can exhange a feat for a +1 ability score increase.

This, however, means you're still left with exactly the problem you've decried, except that that prime ability will be maxed that bit sooner. If, as you assert, the ability boosts are just that much more powerful that people must have them, then they'll just swap out their feats at 1st and 3rd to get them.

If you want to prevent people from doing that, or you want to ensure that they have actual feats, you really have to remove the ability to trade them out.

I also hate not getting a feat at 1st level. They seem to think that people will be overwhelmed by choices, but that is just not my experience (and I find it actually a bit insulting).

I disagree - I think that's exactly the right decision. At 1st level you already have plenty of choices to make. Better to leave feats for later, IMO.