D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[GMforPowergamers]

the casual players I play with who basically had me build their characters for them in 3e and 4e make 5e characters for themselves with no issues. Making all of the choices "big picture" choices definitely makes character creation and advancement easier for those folks.

I have noticed a slight improvement in casual players making characters but I would not say it is 100%

 

[Vaalingrade]

And even if that were the case, then surely we can be allowed more options in later releases. Or perhaps some sort of next tier D&D for people not satisfied with basically no options. An 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' if you will.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@doctorbadwolf saw the shock face. For some extra context, my wife is intelligent, literate, educated (MFA), and likes games.

Okay. I'm fairly certain that a surprised face in response to your whole group not using feats doesn't call anyone's intelligence, literacy, or level of education, into question, so....why are you throwing your wife's credentials at me?

My direct experiences match what WotC and D&D Beyond have said about Feat usage being a minority option as is in 5E. But this rule shift really feels right to me, based on Theros, Ravenlot, and Strixhaven. The narrative centering in Background gives a foundation in story, similar to Class and Race already grounding rules material, that will work for more players compared to "choose which minor numeric bonus you want, no takesybacksies".

I've never seen any player pick feats that just give what could be described as a numeric bonus, to be fair.

I'm well aware that most players don't take feats. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make a bunch of assumptions about why I'm surprised by your post and make a whole weirdly defensive reply to my....digital representation of raising my eyebrows in surprise.

it depends on the you...
if you mean me the player to there right...very little.
if you mean me the DM... cause I need to know what in the heck they are doing.

again as a player I (mostly*) don't. As a DM i am pretty fair and open about working with people who are willing to work with me... but you best have SOME answer other then "the cool powers" or "I read an Op board" or else we will need to discus the game and how it flows (normally a group effort all players)

okay... they get expertise and skill mastery (both great starts) how do they compare to move earth, shape water, charm person, identify, and knock?

but only the ones that are called out as magic... and even then as cool as you are, casters just can out do you

like rogue they get close... let me coppy and paste how do they compare to move earth, shape water, charm person, identify, and knock?

nope... what does a barbarian bring to table?

Good lord.

Is it really this hard to recognize the difference between an actual problem and you just not preferring a thing?

You said:

people who want to have fun with choices and multi functions across all pillars are stuck as spellcasting

(you also said some offensive garbage that you should be ashamed of, but whatever)

People who want to have fun with choices and function across all pillars are playing all of the classes I listed, out here in the actual world we live in, right now.

 

[Deadstop]

Was it because it was his Game and Campaign her created and he wasn't a player?

To be fair, he did play in the campaign (Rob Kuntz was the other DM). Bigby of the hand obsession (and Digby and Riggby and probably other rhyming names) was one of his characters. And I believe Otto (of irresistible dance fame) started out as a lower-level henchman of Mordenkainen, according to some of his stories. So he applied the "stable of characters rotating through a consistent world" thing to himself, too.

But the whole atmosphere of gaming was different then, too. The aforementioned Rob Kuntz, with his character Robilar, used a ring of invisibility to conduct a solo exploration of lower levels of the Greyhawk dungeon than any group had previously reached, and ended up releasing some imprisoned demigods and demon princes. So character choices definitely impacted the game and world -- I believe Robilar's actions are still part of the "official" history of the published Greyhawk setting -- but there wasn't necessarily a consistent "party" from session to session. It was closer to what has more recently been revived as "West Marches" style, where subgroups of PCs get together with the DM whenever they have a goal for an expedition, and you might play a different one of your characters next time, either just because you feel like it, or it helps the party composition for that particular outing, or you've established previously that your "main" PC is taking a year off from adventuring to do spell research or whatever.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay. I'm fairly certain that a surprised face in response to your whole group not using feats doesn't call anyone's intelligence, literacy, or level of education, into question, so....why are you throwing your wife's credentials at me?

I wasn't throwing them at you, sorry if that came off as aggresive: I wasn't sure what about my post surprised you, honestly, I was mostly laying that as groundwork for why I think this new version of Feats is superior to the 2014 version.

I've never seen any player pick feats that just give what could be described as a numeric bonus, to be fair.

I've never played with anyone using Feats since 5E, so it is pretty much all theorycraft to me.

I'm well aware that most players don't take feats. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make a bunch of assumptions about why I'm surprised by your post and make a whole weirdly defensive reply to my....digital representation of raising my eyebrows in surprise.

I had no idea what element may have surprised, sorry if I cause offense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wasn't throwing them at you, sorry if that came off as aggresive: I wasn't sure what about my post surprised you, honestly, I was mostly laying that as groundwork for why I think this new version of Feats is superior to the 2014 version.

I've never played with anyone using Feats since 5E, so it is pretty much all theorycraft to me.

I had no idea what element may have surprised, sorry if I cause offense.

No worries, text weirds communication sometimes. What surprised me was simply that your impression of feats is that they're dull and just "minor numeric bonuses" in 5e. I've seen plenty of people talk about never using them, but never seen those things said about them.

I think the PHB certainly had some duds, but I also find stuff like Alert are such a great shortcut to something like the gunslinger who is never caught offguard and has a gun drawn the second there's trouble, even from a seemingly deep sleep, for instance.

Then there's stuff like charger....oof. I love charging in games that make it worth it, with some tradeoff, but that would be a poor deal for most characters even as a general rule!

Then you get most interesting stuff like Mage Slayer or Skulker, Mobile, and the feats tht got overvalued in terms of balance but are very interesting anyway, like Keen Mind and Linguist (could have been one feat tbh), or Actor, or Athlete.

Then to see you praise the new background with feats thing, basically the theme-as-feats from the Next playtest, in the same post, when it's just a beefier version of what feats already were doing, and I was just kinda....surprised.

 

[Parmandur]

No worries, text weirds communication sometimes. What surprised me was simply that your impression of feats is that they're dull and just "minor numeric bonuses" in 5e. I've seen plenty of people talk about never using them, but never seen those things said about them.

I think the PHB certainly had some duds, but I also find stuff like Alert are such a great shortcut to something like the gunslinger who is never caught offguard and has a gun drawn the second there's trouble, even from a seemingly deep sleep, for instance.

Then there's stuff like charger....oof. I love charging in games that make it worth it, with some tradeoff, but that would be a poor deal for most characters even as a general rule!

Then you get most interesting stuff like Mage Slayer or Skulker, Mobile, and the feats tht got overvalued in terms of balance but are very interesting anyway, like Keen Mind and Linguist (could have been one feat tbh), or Actor, or Athlete.

Then to see you praise the new background with feats thing, basically the theme-as-feats from the Next playtest, in the same post, when it's just a beefier version of what feats already were doing, and I was just kinda....surprised.

I am honestly surprised myself. I think that what I have realized, from the Setting variants and this Dragonlance test, the issue for me and the people I've gamed with is pretty much presentation. I know there are some neat Feats in the book, but I've seen very clever people glaze over looking at the list as presented and move on with just upping their abilities. Now, if Criminal comes with the powers of Dungeon Delver (for example), it has narrative context that grounds it in character story, and if that leads to a small selection of story relevant options that makes a very different case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the things I consider a "hidden strength" of 5e for why it's so popular is the lack of minutia choices that players have to make when they make a character. Pick a race, pick a class, pick a background, arrange your stat array/die rolls according to the advice for your class, mark the skills you get and you're basically done except for a couple of classes that make you take your subclass at first level and choice of spells.

I know it seems counterintuitive to folks who really want to have maximal customization options from level 1 for their characters, but the casual players I play with who basically had me build their characters for them in 3e and 4e make 5e characters for themselves with no issues. Making all of the choices "big picture" choices definitely makes character creation and advancement easier for those folks.

It also makes the game much less fun for a lot of other people. And that part is going to continue to get worse.

 

[Maxperson]

It also makes the game much less fun for a lot of other people. And that part is going to continue to get worse.

There's a middle ground. There's lots of room for added feats and perhaps even prestige classes as optional extras, so DMs don't have to use them and players don't need to choose them even if they are available. 5e will still play fine for the folks who want things simple, even if others are in the same group that want more complex.

I'd like to see prestige classes come in tied to classes, backgrounds and/or class and backgrounds in combination. They'd be able to be chosen at 11th level and would replace the base class abilities of 11th+. People who want simple aren't going to be gimped for not swapping an ASI for a feat, or for not giving up class abilities for prestige class abilities.

 

[Parmandur]

There's a middle ground. There's lots of room for added feats and perhaps even prestige classes as optional extras, so DMs don't have to use them and players don't need to choose them even if they are available. 5e will still play fine for the folks who want things simple, even if others are in the same group that want more complex.

I'd like to see prestige classes come in tied to classes, backgrounds and/or class and backgrounds in combination. They'd be able to be chosen at 11th level and would replace the base class abilities of 11th+. People who want simple aren't going to be gimped for not swapping an ASI for a feat, or for not giving up class abilities for prestige class abilities.

Sounds a bit more like paragon paths.