D&D 5E New Feats Survey!

[Parmandur]

DM's call I imagine.

They way Gygax intended.

The “but” suggests to me that there is meant to be a negative somewhere in that sentence. If that’s the case, I disagree.

The bonus applies every role, for the rest of the campaign. It's not monumental, but it adds up.

 

[Parmandur]

This is the most common reading of rules, yes. If you need permission to do something, it's pretty heavily implied that you can't do it without permission.

Especially sincce if the dm grants feat features without the feat, they

An excellent argument to not allow Feats...

 

[jmartkdr2]

An excellent argument to not allow Feats...

Or at least not have feats for things that fall under regular proficiencies.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's the problem with Feats,in a nutshell: they undermine creative play.

That's not a problem with most/all Feats at all.

It's a problem with a specific subcategory of Feats, and it's been a huge problem since 3E. I call this category "enabling Feats", but that's an overly positive name honestly lol.

These are the Feats where the thing the Feat lets you do should either be:

A) Something that the game should routinely have rules for, and it's dumb that it doesn't - like Charger.

or

B) Something that the DM might give out at their discretion, and that's probably an unusual situation, but because Feat exists, the implication is it can only happen with the Feat.

3.XE was absolutely top-to-bottom riddled with Feats like this, and Feats which were "Yeah you can do X but you'll be absolutely rubbish at it unless you have this Feat", so I get where you're coming from with those. But most Feats aren't these, especially not in 5E, which actively set out to avoid that.

An excellent argument to not allow Feats...

No lol, an excellent argument to not allow THOSE SPECIFIC Feats, which are a minority of Feats in 5E - they might have been a majority in 3.XE, and even if they weren't, there were huge numbers of them, whereas we could easily go through 5E and call out every Feat which was like this, and I don't think we'd even get to 10.

 

[deganawida]

That's the problem with Feats,in a nutshell: they undermine creative play.

I hate to sound old (not really that old, only mid-40s, and started playing with 2nd edtion, but still....), but I completely agree with this. It's also why I don't like the Battlemaster. It's proscriptive play, in that unless you're specifically allowed to do this one thing, you can't do it. The more granular the game rules do this, the less creative players get. Feats (which really should have been called talents) seemed like a great idea back in the day, but I have grown to detest them thoroughly. I'm the kind of player who, if the DM says there's a chandelier, will attempt to swing from it in an attack, or knock it down, or something. If I have to take a feat or a maneuver to do that, then I'm taken out of the immersion of the combat.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not a problem with most/all Feats at all.

It's a problem with a specific subcategory of Feats, and it's been a huge problem since 3E. I call this category "enabling Feats", but that's an overly positive name honestly lol.

These are the Feats where the thing the Feat lets you do should either be:

A) Something that the game should routinely have rules for, and it's dumb that it doesn't - like Charger.

or

B) Something that the DM might give out at their discretion, and that's probably an unusual situation, but because Feat exists, the implication is it can only happen with the Feat.

3.XE was absolutely top-to-bottom riddled with Feats like this, and Feats which were "Yeah you can do X but you'll be absolutely rubbish at it unless you have this Feat", so I get where you're coming from with those. But most Feats aren't these, especially not in 5E, which actively set out to avoid that.

No lol, an excellent argument to not allow THOSE SPECIFIC Feats, which are a minority of Feats in 5E - they might have been a majority in 3.XE, and even if they weren't, there were huge numbers of them, whereas we could easily go through 5E and call out every Feat which was like this, and I don't think we'd even get to 10.

There are a lot more cool Feats, particularly in more recent books: but 3E was gross, so gross. Fun fact: Feats actually come from the 2E Proficiency system, because the 3E team was tasked with implementing the boss's homebrew RoleMaster like Skill system, but were still attached to 2E Proficiencies because...reasons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Without the feat, what does an inspiring speech do? What bonuses does it grant on a successful check?

Like any ability check, it depends on the fiction as interpreted by you and your DM.

The easiest thing is to use the feat as a benchmark, because it works without any roll.

So, the feat gives level+Cha mod THP to 6 creatures. The 6 creature limit is overly restrictive IMO, but let’s operate without changing the feat for this discussion.

I’d just say, roll persuasion or performance. Cha mod THP to up to prof bonus characters.

Now, if I were going to make the feat feel worth not taking other feats for, I’d make the THP PB+Cha mod to all friendly creatures who hear the speech within a number of feet equal to 5xPB. Or, I’d make it a pool of THP you can spread evenly among any number of creatures who hear you, with a pet creature cap. I’d do some math on those options and pick one to test out, and make sure the player knows it might change.

Then I’d make sure the no-feat version is less THP.

Or you could ignore the feat’s model, and give inspiration to those who hear it.

Or you could give inspiration with a check, and add the feat benefit to that if you have the feat.

Whatever makes sense. Because that’s how 5e works. You use the books to make your D&D .

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I hate to sound old (not really that old, only mid-40s, and started playing with 2nd edtion, but still....), but I completely agree with this. It's also why I don't like the Battlemaster. It's proscriptive play, in that unless you're specifically allowed to do this one thing, you can't do it. The more granular the game rules do this, the less creative players get. Feats (which really should have been called talents) seemed like a great idea back in the day, but I have grown to detest them thoroughly. I'm the kind of player who, if the DM says there's a chandelier, will attempt to swing from it in an attack, or knock it down, or something. If I have to take a feat or a maneuver to do that, then I'm taken out of the immersion of the combat.

But you don’t need to take any option to do that. At most, a feat or maneuver would make it “just work” and/or give you a bonus benefit on top of it working.

 

[deganawida]

But you don’t need to take any option to do that. At most, a feat or maneuver would make it “just work” and/or give you a bonus benefit on top of it working.

This is an honest question and I'd like to know if anyone else sees it this way. Taking the Battlemaster (is that a portmanteau, or just two words?), and the trip maneuver, does this mean no one else is intended to trip? I would say that the implementation of a specific maneuver limited to a specific subclass or feats taken, implies that yes, no one else is intended to trip. The counterargument is weakened by there being specific options laid out in the rules to allow you to trip. However, there is a counterargument that the Battlemaster just gets bonuses to it, and that has some merit.

Do you see it differently? I have faith in my DM allowing me to do trip attacks outside of the subclass or feats, but not necessarily other DMs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fun fact: Feats actually come from the 2E Proficiency system, because the 3E team was tasked with implementing the boss's homebrew RoleMaster like Skill system, but were still attached to 2E Proficiencies because...reasons.

Wow. That explains a lot about 3E. I'd love to read a really detailed account of all that kind of stuff, if anyone knows of one, please point me to it!