D&D 5E Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?

[FrogReaver]

...
The reason why you might need a Tough feat to represent a tougher-than-average character is because there aren't a lot of ways to represent toughness, given the simplicity of the model. The primary metric for toughness is just your Con score, but a lot of people have a very high Con score. If everyone in the party has Con 20, which is a thing that happens more than you might imagine, then everyone in the party is objectively very tough and nobody is noticeably more tough than anybody else (although the fighter is more skilled than the wizard, if they're of equal level, and so has more HP). If you want to play a noticeably-tougher character in a party where everyone has high Con, the Tough feat gives you a way of doing so. (So does the Hill Dwarf, of course, but racial options also come with a lot of extra baggage that might not fit your character concept.)

I skipped right to the meat of your post. I hope you don't mind.

On a side note: Toughness would actually be a measure of hit die size and constitution score.

1. Why do other characters toughness have anything to do with your characters toughness?
2. Why is it an issue for everyone in the party to all be very tough?

I guess the only legitimate complaint I'm hearing is how does one progress in toughness after you have reached the 20 stat cap on toughness. In that case feats aren't the answer. Instead the answer is either uncapped ability scores OR not having ASI's at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

What?

If two characters are mechanically the same, then any "concept" that applies to one character MUST apply to the other. So, no, my character without the feat wasn't "tough". He was the same as the other character. The concept flows directly from the feat.



But, I've just shown that no, we don't have enough differentiation. Two characters with similar stats (very possible in a standard array game) will be equally tough/not tough. In order to actually BE tough, I needed the feat.




Nope. All the PC's in the campaign were average. A 14 Con and fixed HP/level means that every fighter type has exactly identical HP. Feats actually 100% allowed for a concept that wasn't allowed before. Even bumping Con wouldn't really cut the mustard. We're talking, what, 20 HP spread at 10th level if I had an 18 Con? Not exactly fitting the concept there. Wow, my tough as nails character actually only has about 10% more HP. Yippee.

Or, take one feat and the concept is viable and visible at the table.

I see the issue. You believe character concept is something dependent on other characters and not something innate to your character.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This is an age-old debate.

If you go back, you will see that there was resistance to many of the original Thief's abilities. If a Thief can "Hide in Shadows," or "Move Silently," doesn't that mean that other characters can't.

Random question. Has there ever been a good way of dealing with that exact type of situation? Just rolling under an ability score wouldn't make sense, since the thief percentages would be less likely to work for most of the game. I remember something from 2e that suggested letting non-thiefs use the 4th level thief percentages (which never made sense, and I'm not sure where I read it, but that's what stuck in my memory).

Not trying to start a whole new conversation, just wondering if there ever was/is a simple answer to that old question.

 

[superstition]

It's always struck me as weird how many people (not speaking of you personally) see "I cast my spider climb spell!" as being Great Roleplay, but "I use my Actor feat!" as the death of creativity. I just...don't get it.

This may be related to the lack of seriousness many players claim comes with the social simulation aspect. Many like to think RPG gaming means a Tactics quick combat simulator, where there isn't time for things like talk and appearance. They argue that charisma should be not a stat, at least not a core one, and that all of the social layers should be pure improv — almost no mechanics. These same folks often are those who obsess, however, over the minutia of combat tactics mechanics.

Personally, I think computer games offer a lot of options in Tactics gaming while tabletop RP with real people is an opportunity to do more of the social stuff. If you want a crunchy numbers game a well-designed computer game can provide that. We're too far from advanced AI for a compelling alternative to real-life gaming for the social simulation part. It's important to have depth and breadth in the rules associated with social simulation or it tends to come crashing down. It's tiring and difficult to do a lot of improv. If your session is very short, you have a lot of time to prepare, and you know how the other players will behave very well, maybe it can work relatively well — especially if your people are good at improv and comfortable with acting. But, if this is so freeing and superior then why not throw out most, if not all, of the combat rules and wing the combats, too?

 

[GameOgre]

There is a reason why the rpg's that heavily lean towards tactical play as opposed to those that lean towards role playing are far more popular. The barrier of entry is not as sharp. Most people have played many board games and video games themselves and understand that type of play far more easily than those that leave behind that style and delve into the game beyond the "Battlemat and game mechanics".

For those games the folks that tend have a lower barrier are those who have a background in acting or character improvisation, a fairly small group.

It's also not so cut and dry. Some long time gamer's move from one group to the other or enjoy both.

neither one is better than the other. It's like comparing Apples to oranges and saying what one do you like? Many like both.

Tactical type play is fun and engages on one level while deep immersive role play engages another.

There is no reason one must choose. Play both or combine the two.

it does however explain why one is far more popular than the other.

To being it back to the OP's question.

Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?

They can. They do not have to however. It all depends on what each player and DM do with them.

 

[superstition]

There is a reason why the rpg's that heavily lean towards tactical play as opposed to those that lean towards role playing are far more popular. The barrier of entry is not as sharp. Most people have played many board games and video games themselves and understand that type of play far more easily than those that leave behind that style and delve into the game beyond the "Battlemat and game mechanics".

For those games the folks that tend have a lower barrier are those who have a background in acting or character improvisation, a fairly small group.

It's also not so cut and dry. Some long time gamer's move from one group to the other or enjoy both.

neither one is better than the other. It's like comparing Apples to oranges and saying what one do you like? Many like both.

Tactical type play is fun and engages on one level while deep immersive role play engages another.

There is no reason one must choose. Play both or combine the two.

it does however explain why one is far more popular than the other.

To being it back to the OP's question.

Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?

They can. They do not have to however. It all depends on what each player and DM do with them.

I tried to point out that having depth and breadth in mechanics for the social simulation aspect, and less of a wall between the Tactics subgame and the rest, can help to alleviate the alleged need for the players to have an acting background and such.

Do players need to have historically-accurate and rigorous training in battlefield tactics (particularly in terms of old-fashioned weaponry, armor, and other tech) to be decent enough at D&D? Not really.

Why should the social aspect be more difficult than the Tactics side? A lot just comes down to what people find interesting enough to put their energy into. Arguing for less mechanical support for the thing they're not interested in helps to reinforce its perceived inferiority by making it work less well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

1. Why do other characters toughness have anything to do with your characters toughness?
2. Why is it an issue for everyone in the party to all be very tough?.

The capability of other characters has a direct impact on the perception of your character. If your concept is that the character is so tough (or strong, smart, whatever) that it is noticeable, then it very much matters who they are standing next to.

Spider-Man can lift 10 tons, but he doesn't meet the concept of a character who is noticeably strong, because he's so frequently found in the company of Venom and The Rhino. Most of his villains are as strong as he is, or stronger, so he ends up being seen as a fast character - even though his strength is an order of magnitude more enhanced than his speed. The perception of a character is almost always a relative judgment.

 

[Hussar]

I see the issue. You believe character concept is something dependent on other characters and not something innate to your character.

Of course it is. You cannot claim to be a strong character in a vacuum. Or, rather, you can, but, the claim is meaningless. If every character has identical strength scores, then in what way are you strong? Concepts are always dependent on other characters.

 

[Hussar]

Devil's advocate here... out of curiosity, was CON your highest stat? Were you a Barbarian? Were you a Hill Dwarf? Did you start at 2nd level when everyone else started at 1st? Because any number of those things would have given you more hit points than the other PCs. Because if you were using HP as your determination of whether you were "tough"... any of those probably could have done just as good (if not better when used in combination) a job at distinguishing you as being "tougher" than your compatriots than the feat. If you didn't have any of those other options, why not? If they would all give you mechanically higher HP totals and you decided that that was what you were using as your determination for "toughness"... then you obviously were choosing not to make yourself as "tough" as you could have been.

Heh, swimming upthread a bit now that I have time. The irony here is delicious. The argument in this thread is "do feats reduce options". Yet, when my concept calls for a "tough character", my options, without feats, are reduced to a single race and/or class. With the Durable feat, suddenly I can play a "tough character" with several other classes and races and it works fine.

And, let's not forget that Durable also bumps Con, meaning that that 10th level character potentially gained 30, not 20, HP. A HUGE bump in a game that does not randomly generate (ahem, creatively roll?) character stats and HP. In our game, the paladin had a 15 Con (maybe 14, I forget to be honest) and I had a 15 when I took the feat. So, yes, I bumped 30 HP (well, 24, since I took the feat at 8th) over the next highest HP character in the group. At 10th level, the paladin would have (10+9*6+20=) 84 HP and I had 114. Nearly a 50% bump. More than enough to be significant and cement my concept. Even going with just hill dwarf (and completely negating my concept of Solamnic Knight) would have only netted me 10 more HP. Smidgeon more than a 10% bump. Not exactly feeling the distinction there.

So, with the Durable feat, I got to play the toughest character in the group, while still being a human knight of Solamnia.

Isn't that a net increase in options and creativity?

 

[Kinematics]

Heh, swimming upthread a bit now that I have time. The irony here is delicious. The argument in this thread is "do feats reduce options". Yet, when my concept calls for a "tough character", my options, without feats, are reduced to a single race and/or class. With the Durable feat, suddenly I can play a "tough character" with several other classes and races and it works fine.

And, let's not forget that Durable also bumps Con, meaning that that 10th level character potentially gained 30, not 20, HP. A HUGE bump in a game that does not randomly generate (ahem, creatively roll?) character stats and HP. In our game, the paladin had a 15 Con (maybe 14, I forget to be honest) and I had a 15 when I took the feat. So, yes, I bumped 30 HP (well, 24, since I took the feat at 8th) over the next highest HP character in the group. At 10th level, the paladin would have (10+9*6+20=) 84 HP and I had 114. Nearly a 50% bump. More than enough to be significant and cement my concept. Even going with just hill dwarf (and completely negating my concept of Solamnic Knight) would have only netted me 10 more HP. Smidgeon more than a 10% bump. Not exactly feeling the distinction there.

So, with the Durable feat, I got to play the toughest character in the group, while still being a human knight of Solamnia.

Isn't that a net increase in options and creativity?

Your explanations continue to be confusing.

You were originally talking about the Tough feat, but now you're talking about Durable? Durable increases Con, but does not otherwise affect hit points. Tough increases hit points, but does not affect Con.

Compared to the paladin at 84 HP, if you took Tough, you'd have 104 HP, and if you took Durable you'd have 94 HP. To get 114 HP, you'd need to take both.