D&D 5E How They Should Do Feats

[the Jester]

Feats are fine as they are, at least for my tastes. Frankly, I'd prefer going back to the days when you didn't advance stats just by leveling, but having stat bumps as an alternative to feats is acceptable to me.

 

[Gadget]

I must say I disagree with the OP. History shows that feats have been a major power creep in the two editions they have been included in. Not only that, they tend to get stuck with carrying any design weight that doesn't easily fit into the rest of the system, or 'fixes' wedged in after the fact (expertise feats anyone?). 5e needs some tweaking, but I think it is going in the right direction.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I must say I disagree with the OP. History shows that feats have been a major power creep in the two editions they have been included in. Not only that, they tend to get stuck with carrying any design weight that doesn't easily fit into the rest of the system, or 'fixes' wedged in after the fact (expertise feats anyone?). 5e needs some tweaking, but I think it is going in the right direction.

How does having smaller feats instead of bigger ones result in more power creep?

 

[sidonunspa]

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.

Oh please,

like this never happened in 3e/Pathfinder

everyone took the same feats if they wanted to be Archery Monkey.. or a Trip Money.. or so on..

players will build the same thing with smaller feats

 

[Li Shenron]

It also feels bad with so many feats granting proficiencies that the people the feats are "for" already have. Even if it's optimal, it still feels like you've screwed up somehow and are wasting resources.

But, really, I think the system could be redeemed very easily with a different list of feats.

As I wrote, I think overlapping proficiencies are an issue. Not a game-breaking issue, but nevertheless still an issue. It's the kind of thing that some gamers say don't care or worry about, until it happens to them, and then they start complaining. It just feels bad, like when you're a kid and get duplicate baseball cards. Those who genuinely don't care about overlapping are probably in many cases players who generally don't worry much about the rules behind their PC.

However, the proficiency problem cannot really be solved by a different list of feats IMO, unless you mean to have really a lot of feats, to create variants where e.g. Archery Master version 1 grants bow proficiency (so it's meant for those who don't already have it) and Archery Master version 2 doesn't grant bow proficiency but replaces it with something else (and is therefore meant for those who already have the proficiency). But you'd still get some players who would like that "something else" but also needed the proficiency.

Te best solution IMO is really to downsize feats back again, so that a feat's benefit is approximately as valuable as a proficiency, and proficiencies can be feats again.

One feat == one proficiency == +1 ability score.

And then obviously still have feats with unique benefits, balanced against this equation (it is of course a "reasonable" equivalency, it can't be perfectly equal).

This of course assumes that one proficiency = +1 ability score. Some people would disagree that this is the case. I say that roughly it feels like a reasonable trade-off to me, but it's tricky to compare them since the ability increase is worth the same at all levels, while proficiencies scale by level.

Also along with a choice of a mini-feat or a +1 to an ability why don't you throw in the option of language or skill so all the options are on the table (a mini-Loremaster feat if you will)

Exactly!

Language is always very questionable, because in some campaigns languages are completely useless, so let's not focus on this one option too much.

But proficiencies, which now include skills, saving throws, weapons (if one is too few, weapon groups could be used), armors and tools, are really something that need support to be taken individually one-by-one.

While it is ok to have a Loremaster feat turning someone into an expert in many fields, this is not going to be ok for a lot of players, who are looking for expertise in one field. Granted, backgrounds are customizable, but they have one big limitation: you can only choose your background at the start of the game. Thus there is no way during the course of your PC's lifetime to add a specific proficiency, unless you take "the whole package" that turns you into an expert archer or a loremaster etc. There is a huge gap between the two options, having or not having that feat.

Now for those players who do want the whole packages, they should just notice that we already had them, and they were called "Specialties".

But if feats were smaller (as small as a proficiency and as a +1 ability score), it would solve so many problems at once. Furthermore there would be much more player's freedom, because in the current implementation you don't have to take feats if you don't like them, you don't have to take ability increases if you don't like them, but you have to take one of the two anyway. With smaller feats, you can also opt for proficiencies (which are themselves quite a range!) so you have an additional degree of freedom.

As I said, the only problem that small feats don't solve, is that they will have to be balanced against a +1 ability increase, which some people don't like and want +2 instead. But to me the benefits largely outweight this problem.

 

[Kinak]

However, the proficiency problem cannot really be solved by a different list of feats IMO, unless you mean to have really a lot of feats, to create variants where e.g. Archery Master version 1 grants bow proficiency (so it's meant for those who don't already have it) and Archery Master version 2 doesn't grant bow proficiency but replaces it with something else (and is therefore meant for those who already have the proficiency). But you'd still get some players who would like that "something else" but also needed the proficiency.

I don't know, I think there's a much simpler solution than that.

-Remove all incidental proficiency gains from feats
-Optionally, add those proficiencies as requirements
-Put in feats to gain proficiency in those things

Granted, the new feats have to be substantially broader than the 3.x equivalents, but spending a feat to get a bunch of weapon or armor proficiencies certainly doesn't seem too harsh.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Li Shenron]

-Remove all incidental proficiency gains from feats
-Optionally, add those proficiencies as requirements
-Put in feats to gain proficiency in those things

Ok, but with the current feats size, you still end up with feats granting multiple proficiencies in a bundle, so that those feats are balanced with feats granting other benefits.

If those bundles are fixed, then you still have the problem of overlapping. You might have a feat granting 3 weapons + one armor type + shield proficiency. This is great for someone who has none and wants them all, but sucks for someone who needs/want only part of these.

You can improve the situation by having a "customizable bundle", i.e. one feat saying "choose a combination of 4 proficiencies". At least in this case you won't have duplicates, but still you are forcing people to get 4 proficiencies when maybe they only needed/wanted 1.

The best solution is always reducing the size of feats, at the end... perhaps weapons would still need groups in a similar way as armors, so technically you might still have someone who wants to be proficient only in Full Plate and is forced to take all heavy armors, but at least the scale of the problem is significantly reduced, compared to having to get something very different.

 

[Kinak]

The best solution is always reducing the size of feats, at the end...

Well, that's certainly the best solution for this problem, but small feats cause problems as well. The trade out being only being +1 apparently bothers people, simple large abilities have to be subdivided into smaller more complex components, and the individual choices matter less.

Which isn't to say I disagree. I'd be fine with more smaller feats, but there are valid arguments on both sides.

perhaps weapons would still need groups in a similar way as armors, so technically you might still have someone who wants to be proficient only in Full Plate and is forced to take all heavy armors, but at least the scale of the problem is significantly reduced, compared to having to get something very different.

This is probably how I'd handle it. You get a broad weapon or armor group... or even just all armor or all weapons.

It sounds weird from a balance perspective, but players change weapons so rarely that granting all weapons is only slightly different than granting two or three. And it sounds awesome.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Gadget]

How does having smaller feats instead of bigger ones result in more power creep?

I give you...3E & 4E! It does. It becomes a catch all for implementing most concepts either through a feat or combination of feats, death by a thousand cuts. It leads to a slew of tic-tacky +/- 1 that seem to be less significant but through combinations and clever system mastery add up to power plays that change the game. Especially if smaller feats are combined with acquiring more of them. The bigger feats are slated to be optional, easily swapped out with a stat bonus, and a more significant choice. Will it work? I don't know, there may be problems. But I know what doesn't work well...the same old smaller feats.

 

[Blackwarder]

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.

I don't think that this is how feats should work, I like the current scheme, going back to 3e/4e way would be the worst thing ever.

Warder