D&D 5E 18/7/2013 D&D Next Q&A: Feat Progression, Bonus Feats & Requirements

[Dausuul]

I think that is close to the equivalent bonus for disadvantage, as calculated by someone on these boards a long time ago.

Using that ability could therefore grant disadvantage instead of -5, but that would reveal the main limitation of the (dis)advantage mechanic: that they don't stack. Therefore using this feat would be the default everytime you already have disadvantage for another reason, resulting in getting the bonus for no additional cost.

The rogue in the current playtest packet offers a solution for this. You can accept disadvantage on an attack in order to get sneak attack damage--but only if you don't already have disadvantage. I'm not fond of it in the rogue's case, mostly for aesthetic reasons; it doesn't feel right to have rogues trading accuracy for damage. But it would be perfect for Power Attack.

 

[Li Shenron]

The rogue in the current playtest packet offers a solution for this. You can accept disadvantage on an attack in order to get sneak attack damage--but only if you don't already have disadvantage. I'm not fond of it in the rogue's case, mostly for aesthetic reasons; it doesn't feel right to have rogues trading accuracy for damage. But it would be perfect for Power Attack.

I like that much more.

Of course it also means, that you can't use such abilities in the first place when disadvantaged. I am fine with that, but I suppose for a character who has many, then having disadvantage on attacks becomes a blocker to lots of tactics.

 

[Li Shenron]

I for one will not miss fiddly feats.

If I have to make choices over small abilities, I want them to be over a limited list of options. Otherwise, the cost of finding the right option (whether for fiction or gamist reasons) rapidly exceeds the benefits.

I hardly doubt that 5e feats will belong to a limited list... If they'll be used to represent prestige classes, supplement books will have probably as many feats as to cover the space that was used for both old feats and prestige classes in 3e books. Of course the actual number of feats will be 1/3 only, but each feat will have x3 amount of text to go through.

What I've been trying to say, is that the announced change doesn't really have any benefit* over the situation of feats in 5e packets so far. Because if you didn't like to go through 100 feats to pick 4, you didn't have to... you would have gone through 10 specialties and pick 1. We already had that option in the game. OTOH another player who did like going through 100 feats could also do the same, but probably won't be able to anymore.

*for the players, because yes it has some benefit for the designers who now will have a little bit more freedom in choosing what to put into a specialty, since it doesn't have to be "divisible"

 

[GX.Sigma]

What I've been trying to say, is that the announced change doesn't really have any benefit* over the situation of feats in 5e packets so far. Because if you didn't like to go through 100 feats to pick 4, you didn't have to... you would have gone through 10 specialties and pick 1.

Except you couldn't really, since there were useless feats like Distant Spell at level 1 (seriously, name a single spell you would want to use that on), Healing Initiate in the healer specialty (which gives you spells you already have if you're a healer), etc. Also, bonus feats literally made you pick one from the giant list.

 

[variant]

My only problem with the feat system is that they are called feats. They really need a new name for these. There is nothing about the word 'feat' that remotely describes what these are.

I hope there are a variety of feat types such as feats that aren't purely combat related and feats with racial, regional, and backgrounds requirements to advance character traits outside of just your class. Specific fighting style feats and feats that blend together multiclasses better would be nice as well.

 

[tuxgeo]

My only problem with the feat system is that they are called feats. They really need a new name for these. There is nothing about the word 'feat' that remotely describes what these are.

That way lies madness. There can be no end to suggestions that people could offer to replace the word "feat" in that context.

I mean, just replacing the first letter with another: beat, geat, heat, meat, neat, peat, seat, teat, and w(h)eat are already taken; but that's the good news, because ceat, deat, jeat, keat, qeat, reat, veat, xeat, and zeat mean nothing, so they wouldn't connect with the users at all.

Calling them "attainments" or "prizes" or "merit badges" makes about as much sense as anything else.

 

[Li Shenron]

Except you couldn't really, since there were useless feats like Distant Spell at level 1 (seriously, name a single spell you would want to use that on), Healing Initiate in the healer specialty (which gives you spells you already have if you're a healer), etc. Also, bonus feats literally made you pick one from the giant list.

Bonus feats were in fact a mistake IMHO, and not only for this reason. As for useless (ie weak) feats, that's a problem of specific feats design, and the new system is not exempt from that.

 

[DMZ2112]

Calling them "attainments" or "prizes" or "merit badges" makes about as much sense as anything else.

I think [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] makes a valid point on the first page of this thread; these "feats" have more in common with Themes, which is already something with an identity in D&D.

Which is not to say that I approve of this direction in design. I think feats and lots of them are important to managing character customization. The problem has never been too many feats, it's been feats that grant bonuses -- stackable bonuses.

A feat ought to describe /an action/ your character can perform that a character that has not taken the feat cannot perform -- a /feat/.