D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[Remathilis]

Ok, nobody else will say it so I will...

The best possible outcome of this is that background features become worth a feat and thus actually mean something.

The vast majority of background features are forgettable. As in, people forget they have them. Or more likely, they don't have much ability to use them unless the DM runs in such a way to actively use them. In the vast majority of adventure paths, they are useless. You aren't going to be able your noble ability to secure an audience with another noble in Barovia, Avernus, or the Underdark. (And then if you could, you still probably don't want to). Even if you do find use for them, it's rarely a boon beyond "you know a guy", "you can stay here for free" or "you can ignore tracking rations while on route."

I would much prefer features that had some mechanical bite to them. Give soldiers some weapon or armor proficiency along with a rank. Give charlatans a feature closer to Actor. Give a hermit the ability to cast augury as a ritual with their revelation. Give Inquisitive bonuses to passive perception. Give sailors the ability to move without penalty on a sailing ship. Give them something other than a weak and highly situational ribbon.

 

[Parmandur]

I think I cross posted a clarifying edit while you were responding so I'll ask you if you don't mind to go back and read that edit rather than repeat it. I do understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand what I'm saying - the upshot is that a player who chooses to be a Knight at character creation gets an advantage over the player who chooses a Background that doesn't provide a feat. It's especially obvious if one character takes the feat to be a squire later so they can gain those mechanical benefits. Either that feat is as good a choice mechanically as any other feat - in which case the Knight player is getting a free feat or that feat is as you say a "lesser feat" - in which case the Folk Hero player loses a feat just to unlock the Knight of the Rose feat access that he wants. And he does this with no compensation for that loss of a feat choice because he didn't get the free feat. And it isn't like the Knight background is a lesser background in compensation for the feat - it gives all of the benefits of a background and a free feat.

Unless the move is to let everyone get a free feat at 1st level (or trade their asi bonus for a feat) some background choices are just going to be better than others. And so the dude who was raised to be a knight will have an advantage over the folk hero who yearns to be a knight and finally achieves his dream. And while that may be "realistic" in a privilege of aristocracy sense, I think it sucks as a game mechanic

I think what can reasonably expect is a free floating Feats, but with a strong thematic suggestion written into every Background thst can be swapped out at the table, similar to Backgrounds and the existing "Gifts" in various books.

 

[Jer]

I think what can reasonably expect is a free floating Fear, but with a strong thematic suggestion written into every Background thst can be swapped out at the table, similar to Backgrounds and the existing "Gifts" in various books.

And if that's how it shakes out then it's fine I guess. The "swap your asi for a feat at first level" is mostly a desire on my end to prevent power creep and let feats stay optional rather than required. I care less about the power creep, but keeping feats optional is worthwhile imo.

 

[Yaarel]

So!

Setting feats, excellent.

Feat chains (where an other feat is a prereq), meh.

But feats with a level prereq, awesome! We now have more powerful feats at higher levels. This is like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, and eventually the epic boons.

Tier 9-12, tier 13-16, tier 17-20, and possibly increasingly powerful feats for each tier.

This is a welcome development for the Fighter class, because the extra feats can select level-prereq feats that really are on par with Wizard spells at those tiers.

 

[Yaarel]

I think what can reasonably expect is a free floating Fear, but with a strong thematic suggestion written into every Background thst can be swapped out at the table, similar to Backgrounds and the existing "Gifts" in various books.

Might as well just make setting feats grant some proficiencies (tool, skill, weapon, armor, maybe cantrip as a magical proficiency), and refer to setting feats as "backgrounds".

 

[Maxperson]

Well, what he said was that Feats were already treated as the same thing as Class features by the development team. So, all Classes are already basically point-buy builds of unspoken Feat combos. Which was obvious in 2014 already, but really obvious once you listen to Mike Mearls happy Fun Hour making new Subclass options.

He said that they already considered them class agnostic(classless) features and that they would continue to look at them like that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As I said in the Dragonlance thread - having Backgrounds carry a Feat with them by default would break mathematical compatibility with the current game in a way that none of the other changes they have made so far do. So I hope that these experiments are being kept to optional books and setting specific Backgrounds and not something they're thinking of putting into the Anniversary Edition.

The one way I could see this work mechanically is if they allow you to swap your +2 ASI at 1st level for a Feat, and you have to do that to take any Background with a Feat attached. Which I think would be a good idea to be honest, so I could see how they could make this mechanically compatible with the current edition if they do it that way.

Having run games normally and with everyone having a bonus feat at level 1...you may be overselling how big a deal it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think what can reasonably expect is a free floating Fear, but with a strong thematic suggestion written into every Background thst can be swapped out at the table, similar to Backgrounds and the existing "Gifts" in various books.

Yeah, Theros certainly assumes that any PC that doesn't take a supernatural gift will take a feat instead.

But the difference is essentially the same as having a PC who takes Linguist and someone who takes an "optimised" feat. Which is to say, in 5e, not actually a particularly significant difference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmm… That’s a little concerning because I could see it making a-la-carte feats and/or ASIs suboptimal. In theory I would prefer the chain feats stick to standard feat power level and the prerequisites mostly be a flavor thing. Of course, in practice the “standard feat power level” is wildly inconsistent, so this will probably work out fine.

Yeah I had a player just completely forget to pick a level 1 bonus feat, one time, because his other group doesn't use that houserule. It was fine. We only realized he'd forgotten because I was helping him figure out level up stuff and I was like, "Why do you have only 1 feat?"

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, Theros certainly assumes that any PC that doesn't take a supernatural gift will take a feat instead.

But the difference is essentially the same as having a PC who takes Linguist and someone who takes an "optimised" feat. Which is to say, in 5e, not actually a particularly significant difference.

Yeah, I donthi k it would break the game, particularly if everyone is expected to get something a little juicy from their Background.