D&D 5E I think I'll leave out feats

[Emerikol]

I'll admit I am still not understanding this. Based on what we've seen, feats will be optional -- an opt-in that the DM has to allow. Stat bumps are default rules: if they are absent from the game, it is because the DM has disallowed them.

Given that, I don't see how stat bumps can be defined in terms of keeping pace with the people who use feats. Why is a default thing helping people keep pace with a thing that won't be in many games?

Perhaps that's clearer.

I'm purely talking about motivations for a design element. A lot of old school games did not have feats. So sure the stat bumps are there as a place holder for them. I believe most groups will want to use feats but not every player will want to use feats who is in those groups. The ability to choose stat bumps or feats lets the anti-feat player still stay in the game. I believe that is the primary design choice. If they had decided not to use feats at all then I believe they wouldn't have bothered with the stat bumps or they'd have used a more traditional approach.

While some games won't use feats, I wouldn't use the word "many" to describe the non-feat using group. Perhaps many in absolute numerical terms but not as a high percentage of all gamers. Even so I think the devs should be lauded in this case for providing for all parties.

As for the bolded part above, unless your talking adventurers league stuff, no DM ever has to allow anything into his campaign.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm purely talking about motivations for a design element. A lot of old school games did not have feats. So sure the stat bumps are there as a place holder for them. I believe most groups will want to use feats but not every player will want to use feats who is in those groups. The ability to choose stat bumps or feats lets the anti-feat player still stay in the game. I believe that is the primary design choice. If they had decided not to use feats at all then I believe they wouldn't have bothered with the stat bumps or they'd have used a more traditional approach.

I don't have access to the motivations for the design element; I'm just looking at the product, where regular stat bumps are standard (in both Basic and the Starter Set) and feats are an optional element to be included in the PhB (so, explicitly, Basic rules p. 19).

While some games won't use feats, I wouldn't use the word "many" to describe the non-feat using group. Perhaps many in absolute numerical terms but not as a high percentage of all gamers. Even so I think the devs should be lauded in this case for providing for all parties.

We can nitpick over what "many" means if you wish:
* every game that only uses Basic rules
* plus some games that use the PHB rules, for which feats are an optional element, dependent on DM approval.

I thought "many" was fair, especially since there are many in this thread (including the OP) who plan on not using them.

As for the bolded part above, unless your talking adventurers league stuff, no DM ever has to allow anything into his campaign.

Can't tell if you are serious or not. Of course the DM does not have to allow optional elements. That is my entire point. It is an opt-in. Perhaps: "...which the DM has to allow [if the player is going to have access to them]." I apologize if this was unclear.

 

[sidonunspa]

How about you?

as long as the GM is reasonable with rules tweaks to make character concepts playable...

I would be fine with out feats.

As a GM I'm allowing feats because they can be a damn good way to have the campaign effect the character's growth.

for example there is a player in my game, she always wanted some dark secret... well she has one now.. without going into much detail... she will be taking feats to "master" her curse...

also the party has been staying in an elven city for some time now, one of the players (a human wizard) stated learning the bow (the elves in my game are very "Zen" when it comes to archery, almost religious in nature, the wizard started to pick it up and he has even taken up the use of the bow to "calm his mind" before he prepares spells)

in 3.X I would need to write up a prestige class fro the 1st and force the 2nd to muticlass to be any good with a bow.

thanks to the new "super feats" I don't have to...

 

[Umbran]

Let me clarify.

I did say and stand by the comment that the primary reason for that stat bump option was so that players not wanting to use feats could stay in the game with the feat users and not feel like they didn't get something.

Except, as others have pointed out, the stat bumps are standard, and feats are optional. So, you have it backwards. The stat bumps are standard, and feats are there for people who find stat bumps boring, but want to keep up with their bumping brethren.

 

[Emerikol]

Except, as others have pointed out, the stat bumps are standard, and feats are optional. So, you have it backwards. The stat bumps are standard, and feats are there for people who find stat bumps boring, but want to keep up with their bumping brethren.

You both should realize that it is not always the case that the stated rule represents the typical case. I feel that stat bumps were created to let non-feat players have the ability to play with feat using characters. No game of D&D has ever had anything approaching the number of stat bumps we have right now. It is in my opinion an elegant and simple way to provide for all parties. I wish they provided so well in other areas. The simpler choice no matter how often selected was going to be the default rule.

I'm confused at the confusion over the difference between the rules as written and what the behind the scenes thinking was as it affected groups. If they've said it one time I've heard them say it a hundred times that feats are optional and that each player can choose to use them or not. (assuming the table is using them though they don't explicitly say that I do give them that much credit). I think their primary reason for so many stat bumps is so everything fits together.

 

[thexar]

I think feats are a primary example of why the new system is awesome - you can leave them out or let them in with no effort. I am entertained by the idea that the options will make the min-mixer's heads explode. In our games, we always have players who want to play simply, and others who want flair and complexity. For the players that wanted to keep it simple, -I- had to do their character maintenance, so they would feel "on par" with the "hard cores". Now if they don't want to research feats they can bump their stats and keep on rolling.

 

[Umbran]

You both should realize that it is not always the case that the stated rule represents the typical case. I feel that stat bumps were created to let non-feat players have the ability to play with feat using characters.

Then, they could/would/should be included *within* the optional rules with feats, instead of in the base rules- "Any character who does not want to take a feat may instead..." If they are really only for evening out feats, they should be *with* feats. But, no, they are part of the base - any game that doesn't use feats is assumed to have stat bumps anyway!

I think you are ignoring the fact that, broadly speaking, players like having stats that go up as characters advance, as part of character growth. Stat bumps are there for that reason. Then, feats are used instead of stat bumps, in part to handle the bounded accuracy - you don't want feats *and* a stat bump, or the numbers start getting too big.

 

[Branduil]

If the final feats are anything like the ones in the recent playtests, then the best thing to note in favour of %e feats vs. 3.5E feats is how few of them the average character is likely to have. If 5E feats continue to have approximately the same scale and scope of influence on a character as in the playtest, most characters should be easily manageable. It was always the fiddly bits that'd kill ya.

It's nice that the feats in the playtest are all basically self-contained, effective powers in their own right, as opposed to 3.x and 4e where you often needed to chain a few feats together before you finally got what you wanted.

 

[doctorhook]

It's nice that the feats in the playtest are all basically self-contained, effective powers in their own right, as opposed to 3.x and 4e where you often needed to chain a few feats together before you finally got what you wanted.

I completely agree. I was looking back at making a campaign guide for 3.5E recently, and the thought of managing all those feats was a major turnoff. Too many options, which wouldn't have been so bad if there weren't so many mediocre ones that are prerequisites for awesome ones, and so many more feats that provide tiny little bonuses that you'd easily forget about. 4E was better, but not by much.

4E feats often got optimized, which meant that non-combat-oriented feats were rarely selected by many of players. I used to argue that 4E should've had utility feat slots, just like it had utility powers. In 5E this problem should be a lot less common, because most of the feats had (in the playtest) combat and utility features.

 

[drjones]

Options are fun for players, and help them feel like what is on the sheet matches what is in their mind. I don't see myself taking any options off the table across the board. Except Dragonborn, they are uh.. not to my taste.