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

[Hussar]

Ah, sorry, brain fart. My bad. Yes, I got them confused. Must learn to read the books before getting my mouth going.

Still, the point remains. It's a 25% bump in HP over the paladin. Screwing over my concept by being a Hill Dwarf would net me 10 HP, half the difference (rather than 1/3, again, my bad).

Again, despite my mistake, isn't the point still the same? I can choose more paths to being a "tough" character with the feat than without.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

Question for you. Barbarians have the largest HD. That's partially a representation of toughness. They also have a great damage reduction ability, another representation of toughness. They can also max con and take whatever feats any other player can take.

If Your character concept is to be the toughest character in the group (and you are a fighter) would the existence of such a barbarian in the group invalidate your character concept? Would the possible existence of such a barbarian in the game invalidate your character concept? Doesn't it raise some kind of red flag to you when what you are claiming is a character concept can be invalidated by other players character choices?

If your character concept can be invalidated by other players character choices then what I'm referring to as character concept is much different than what you are trying to refer to it as. For example, an 8 str fighter may be the strongest character in the group when the group consists of all 6 str characters but I would never refer to such a character as strong. As such I wouldn't refer to "strongest character in the group" as an actual character concept, instead it's just comparative analysis trying to disguise itself as a character concept.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

In an RPG where you have allies that can also create whatever kind of character they want then comparing your character to theirs and trying to use that as the definition of whether you are strong or smart or whatever isn't the way to go. If it's solely relative then in the right party a 8 or 10 str wizard may end up being the strongest in the group and none of us would call that strong. We have a better definition of strong and tough and etc. We have mechanics that already define toughness, intelligence etc. We don't have to compare those numbers across characters in the group to decide who is tough and who is not, we can basically look straight at the number and decide. It may be the case we are playing in a party of all tough guys. It may be the case there's 2-3 tough guys and 2-3 non-tough guys. etc.

The ultimate point is: if you are trying to play to be the toughest character then it is very easy for another player to invalidate your choice with or without a feat. If another player can play something and that invalidates your character concept then what you had wasn't a character concept to begin with IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, sorry, brain fart. My bad. Yes, I got them confused. Must learn to read the books before getting my mouth going.

Still, the point remains. It's a 25% bump in HP over the paladin. Screwing over my concept by being a Hill Dwarf would net me 10 HP, half the difference (rather than 1/3, again, my bad).

Again, despite my mistake, isn't the point still the same? I can choose more paths to being a "tough" character with the feat than without.

The question isn't how many paths you have to achieve a concept but can the concept be achieved without the toughness feat? Also I don't believe that "Toughest character in the group" is an actual character concept. It's just comparative analysis disguised to sound like a character concept. A character concept is general. Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Wise, deceptive, perceptive, etc. We have a way to model all these different concepts. There's not a model anyone can provide to model "toughest character in the party" as it's not a choice you can make that is inherent to your PC. If it can't be modeled then it's not a concept (or at least not a concept that is compatible with any RPG system).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If it's solely relative then in the right party a 8 or 10 str wizard may end up being the strongest in the group and none of us would call that strong.

If the strongest character in the party has an 8, then that would not be strong, because the party is frequently interacting with townsfolk (Str 10) and random orcs (Str 14). If the party is only ever interacting with creatures that are no stronger than they are, and the wizard takes to wrestling those pixies (or whatever) as a routine course of action, then they are playing the role of the strong character and NPCs will acknowledge them as such.

The ultimate point is: if you are trying to play to be the toughest character then it is very easy for another player to invalidate your choice with or without a feat. If another player can play something and that invalidates your character concept then what you had wasn't a character concept to begin with IMO.

I'm not sure that your opinion corresponds to consensus on this topic. Back in the day, at least, it was considered common courtesy to not create a character that's going to upstage another character in their chosen area of expertise. If someone tells you that they want to play the smart guy on the team, and they put their best roll of a 17 in Intelligence, then it's considered rude for you to put that 18 you rolled into your own Intelligence; you should put it somewhere else, or talk about it and get them to pick a different concept.

If someone has a gimmick, then you should let them have their gimmick, and not try to upstage them. There are few things less fun than being stuck playing the worse version of some other character.

 

[FrogReaver]

If the strongest character in the party has an 8, then that would not be strong, because the party is frequently interacting with townsfolk (Str 10) and random orcs (Str 14). If the party is only ever interacting with creatures that are no stronger than they are, and the wizard takes to wrestling those pixies (or whatever) as a routine course of action, then they are playing the role of the strong character and NPCs will acknowledge them as such.
I'm not sure that your opinion corresponds to consensus on this topic. Back in the day, at least, it was considered common courtesy to not create a character that's going to upstage another character in their chosen area of expertise. If someone tells you that they want to play the smart guy on the team, and they put their best roll of a 17 in Intelligence, then it's considered rude for you to put that 18 you rolled into your own Intelligence; you should put it somewhere else, or talk about it and get them to pick a different concept.

If someone has a gimmick, then you should let them have their gimmick, and not try to upstage them. There are few things less fun than being stuck playing the worse version of some other character.

If that is your advice, then what purpose does the toughness feat serve at all. Just convince the other players to let you play with the highest con stat. Right?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's main purpose is to exist. It gives the player another option, I've never known anyone to take it, but people like to have choices. The situation I could envision it being taken is if a character had already capped constitution at 20, and wants to be even tougher. Someone who wants to make a brick outhouse look like a house of cards.

Another option might be if a player wants to play a character with consumption (like Doc Holliday). You could sink constitution to 8, giving them poor saves, but use the feat simply as a gameplay mechanic to keep the character from being unplayable.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's main purpose is to exist. It gives the player another option, I've never known anyone to take it, but people like to have choices. The situation I could envision it being taken is if a character had already capped constitution at 20, and wants to be even tougher. Someone who wants to make a brick outhouse look like a house of cards.

Instead of needing a feat to further increase toughness, we could just not have capped stats. If we find capped stats desirable then feats shouldn't be created to essentially bypass the capped stat either.

Feats take away more choice than they add. How? By requiring more resources to reach a character concept than would have been required without the feat. Since they require more resources to reach part of a character concept that gives me less resources to use on any other parts of my character concept.

Another option might be if a player wants to play a character with consumption (like Doc Holliday). You could sink constitution to 8, giving them poor saves, but use the feat simply as a gameplay mechanic to keep the character from being unplayable.

I've played 8 constitution characters before and they play fine. That said, being able to increase hp through a different source than just constitution and the (healthiness) baggage it carriers has a lot of appeal.

That said another way to model a character with consumption would be with an incurable disease and the character could otherwise be in good health (perhaps that's why he hasn't died to the disease yet). It just depends on the exact details you are looking to convey.

 

[Yunru]

Feats take away more choice than they add. How? By requiring more resources to reach a character concept than would have been required without the feat.

This logic is absurd.
It doesn't matter how many resources are required, having more optioms gives more choices.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Instead of needing a feat to further increase toughness, we could just not have capped stats. If we find capped stats desirable then feats shouldn't be created to essentially bypass the capped stat either.

Feats take away more choice than they add. How? By requiring more resources to reach a character concept than would have been required without the feat. Since they require more resources to reach part of a character concept that gives me less resources to use on any other parts of my character concept.



I've played 8 constitution characters before and they play fine. That said, being able to increase hp through a different source than just constitution and the (healthiness) baggage it carriers has a lot of appeal.

That said another way to model a character with consumption would be with an incurable disease and the character could otherwise be in good health (perhaps that's why he hasn't died to the disease yet). It just depends on the exact details you are looking to convey.

Remove caps? Because it is always a good idea to BREAK THE WHOLE GAME in order to remove a rule you don't like?! Okay, so I will assume you have never played 3.0 and so don't know all the problems caused by uncapped stats (armour becoming meaningless at high levels, characters having no choice but to max out prime stat in order to remain viable, and many many more). You suggestion is still illogical: you want to change dozens of rules (stat caps, ranged weapons in melee, "loading" property etc etc) in order to enable people to still do the same things they could do anyway using one rule you don't like (which you don't have to use anyway).

Sure, you can build a fire sorcerer or a consumptive gunslinger without feats. And just accept that they are mechanically rubbish characters. You know what? if you want to play a mechanically rubbish character you can still make them even if feats are allowed in you game, because no one forces you to take them. And increasing ability scores by a couple of points is so, so, more interesting! <= [this is sarcasm]