Should feats be open or class specific?

[ImperatorK]

Generally open. Class specific feats are called class features.
Instead of class specific I would make them class feature specific, which would make them available to more classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

(I want to preface this by saying this could be a very 5e topic but I've been working on a heartbreaker and just ended up thinking about this topic and was wondering what you guys thought.)
Personally I am very torn on this. I thinking having general feats that everyone picks from can allow for more cross training but as we've seen can lead into "must haves" and can also lead to bland design choices in order to balance them out.
On the flip side by giving classes specific things that only they get to choose from one can make more flavorful design choices as well as preserve their roll in the group dynamic. At the same time though you can end up with reams of rules for every class which can lead to very weighty tomes.
So what's better, what's worse, what do you like?

For me, feats should be as open as possible.

Feats being class-based almost defies the whole purpose of feats.

Class-based feats were understandable in 3e because of the rigidity of the classes, but in 5e classes have plenty of features that could become selectable/swappable with alternate features (especially if the DM allows customizing or mixing subclasses), so there is less need for feats to improve or expand a class' own features.

Therefore, IMO it's a very good idea to separate class-specific stuff (and put it into subclasses or alternate class features) from class-free stuff (and put it into feats). But I'm not going to worry if an occasional feat or two break this separation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Put me down as another who likes a mix. If nothing else, class-specific Feats keep class features from being stagnant and cookie-cutter across all members of a given class.

 

[billd91]

I think I prefer them open as much as possible. If there are class-specific ones, I prefer that they refer to a particular ability of the class rather than the class itself so that if another class is developed to incorporate the same power, it's clear that the feats apply to the new class as well.

 

[ImperatorK]

If there are class-specific ones, I prefer that they refer to a particular ability of the class rather than the class itself so that if another class is developed to incorporate the same power, it's clear that the feats apply to the new class as well.

Or they could refer to different, but very similar class abilities. For example 3.X's Bardic Knowledge and Lore.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the big strengths of feats at their inception was that they were a meaningful element that everyone could use and which wasn't really tied to the class system. Open.

 

[MoonSong]

Mostly Open, a few class feature improvers, though centered on the features not on the class. Just avoid must picks such as natural spell and you'll be fine

 

[dbm]

I'll chip in for 'closed'. 13th Age handle feats really well, and basically uses them as 'add-ons' to class abilities, allowing you to emphasise specific abilities of your character and so differentiate them from other members of the same class.

I found 3rd edition feats to mostly be dull, and in my experience there was only actually a very small subset of them which got used, which tells me that having a big list to pick from is meaningless unless they are genuinely all worthwhile.

I would also add that I find feats which add numerical bonuses very uninspiring (especially combat feats which provide adds). They have zero flavour and rapidly become 'must have' for all the wrong reasons.

 

[ImperatorK]

I'll chip in for 'closed'. 13th Age handle feats really well, and basically uses them as 'add-ons' to class abilities, allowing you to emphasise specific abilities of your character and so differentiate them from other members of the same class.

I found 3rd edition feats to mostly be dull, and in my experience there was only actually a very small subset of them which got used, which tells me that having a big list to pick from is meaningless unless they are genuinely all worthwhile.

I would also add that I find feats which add numerical bonuses very uninspiring (especially combat feats which provide adds). They have zero flavour and rapidly become 'must have' for all the wrong reasons.

Don't forget that PCs aren't the only characters that use them. Many feats may be too weak for a PC, but just right for an NPC.

 

[dbm]

Don't forget that PCs aren't the only characters that use them. Many feats may be too weak for a PC, but just right for an NPC.

That's an assumption which I don't subscribe to: I have found systems where the NPCs are made using different rules to the PCs are superior in play, especially for the GM.

Generally the 'mental load' to create and run an NPC needs to be lower than a PC. The PCs are the focus of attention and need to be mechanically interesting for the long term. NPCs are foils to the PCs, the GM has to manage several of them at once and they are only 'on screen' for a relatively short period of time.

In addition, using a separate structure for monsters and NPCs brings back a lot if the mystery which a 'single design' model takes away - they could literally do anything where as having a specific palette of abilities to pick from is (in my experience) mentally limiting for both the players and GM.

And it was done that way for pretty much every edition appart from 3.x so there is a solid precedent...